You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Witch Hunting Self Upvoters Solves Nothing
That's a mischaracterization. Are you aware that every day we all have to decide with our up and down votes who gets the Steem?
There's nothing "socialist" about supporting the original idea of Steemit, that of cooperative voting. The idea basically is that you profit more by voting for others than you do by voting for yourself, to encourage us to evaluate each other's post and thus determine share of that day's rewards.
So I underline, profit is still and always was part of the equation, just not straight up interest on your stake. You have to do the slightly difficult work of finding good posts to vote on. If it's just interest in a bank, this aspect becomes marginal and it's just a ponzi.
Okay ... every one can do what think best about his vote, including voting for himself. Even the platform itself, at the time of writing your post, allows this option to be selected automatically.
As for the hypothesis about profit more by voting in the post of others than your own ... please show me some real proof. Some people talk about game theory using the Nash's equilibrium, but without evidence (probably those who say this don't study game theory). And honestly it has no logic.
Think about: The author of the post earns 75% of all value earned, while the curators earn 25%. I don't see how a curator invests 1 SBD and earns 2. Maximum will earn 0.25 SBD.
In my opinion the best way everyone will win in Steem is to provide services through the platform, for example if a charity's institution post on the platform and win the donations through votes, or a person create quality online courses on the platform and be paid through votes, rather than adsense from Youtube, for example.
This self-vote or not discussion is just a waste of time, in my opinion.
Proof of what?
Proof this :)
That this idea was an original objective of Steemit?
From the whitepaper, section 2.5.2 - Voting on Distribution of Currency, pg 17 on new whitepaper available here:
This is exactly what was weakened in HF 19, the incentive to not defect to self vote, and exactly what needs to be fixed.
I agree.
I'm talking about today's reality. I joined Steemit after this HF, so I don't know it was before. What I know is the reality of today.
Thanks for sharing your opinion :)
Oh I see. Today's reality is not described in any official document except the code (not easy to read) but we can all observe by experimentation, though it's not ideal.
Markets are good at optimising around incentives and we can observe from the increase in self voting that it is more incentivized after HF 19, as can anyone who has experimented from this.
No problem, thanks for asking. 🙂
I think you neglect the reduction in votes as an incentive to self vote. HF 19 reduced the number of votes that can be cast by minnows by 400%. During the time HF19 was being discussed and developed, the number of posts rose by 1000%.
The number of votes available to be cast has been reduced dramatically, and those new to the platform are starved for votes.
I don't think the exponential weighting extant prior to HF19 reduced reward pool mining at all. Virtually all author rewards went to a handful of accounts, and as far as I know that hasn't changed at all since HF19.
If only every user got that concept. I actually think finding good posts from authors you don't know is part of the fun of Steemit. Feels like too many people upvote without reading the content.