Some things never change on Steemit, and lately an air of nostalgia has been brought to the platform by, you guessed it, flagging drama.
People still see the flag as a personal attack against them, which is not how it should be.
People still feel entitled to their potential payouts, which is not how it should be.
What seems to happen a lot on Steemit is people attracting regular big votes long enough for it to become standard, and then they feel that's the way it should be forever and ever. They get used to the fact that once they post, they make, say, $100 every time, and they are entitled to that.
These people seem to lack a fundamental understanding of how Steemit, and the allocation of rewards, works.
There are two types of votes: upvotes and downvotes. These don't differ from one another in any other way other than being opposite to each other.
When a post is upvoted, it's upvoted because the upvoter feels that particular post should be rewarded more.
When a post is downvoted, it's downvoted because the downvoter feels that particular post should be rewarded less.
It doesn't have to be anything personal, it's not like all upvotes are personal, either.
It's hugely hypocritical to accept the upvotes, but reject the downvotes. It reminds me of a certain other trending author from back in the day, who was more than okay with the fact that he was getting upvoted by both dan accounts, guaranteeing huge rewards, but once he got downvoted, he went on a nonstop tirade FOR WEEKS about how it's soooo wrong that one or two users on Steemit dictate who does and doesn't deserve to be rewarded.
Why wasn't he ranting about the same thing when it was indeed one user ensuring him the rewards on a regular basis? How was it any different when it was upvotes instead of downvotes? Why were the upvotes not an "abuse of power"? It was largely one user deciding he should be heavily rewarded.
Of course, it wasn't. The only difference was that the upvotes made him money, while the downvotes reduced his potential payouts.
When it's a whale upvoting, there's never a problem with "one user" "abusing his power", but when it's one user downvoting, it all of a sudden becomes an abuse of power.
Even though both votes do the exact same thing: allocate a large portion of the resources, based on the whim of that particular individual.
And there's nothing wrong with that. The voting is stake based. I feel silly having to even explain this, this is the entire basis of how Steemit and STEEM Power work, but obviously there is still a significant portion of the userbase that doesn't quite seem to grasp how this Steemit thing functions.
Stake based voting means that the more STEEM Power you hold, the bigger the portion of the rewards you control. This counts for both upvotes and downvotes. A stakeholder can use his or her stake any way he or she sees fit.
A stakeholder can use his or her stake any way he or she sees fit.
So, as an example. Large Stakeholder A decides to upvote a post. This is how he decided to use his stake today. Large Stakeholder B decides to downvote that post. This is how he decided to use his stake today.
No crime is being committed here
Recently, we had a situation where @transisto felt that a particular poster was being rewarded heavily, in relates to his view count. His logic was that the author's posts were not attracting a large enough view count to justify the rewards on those posts.
Now, people can either agree or disagree with the logic, but that is @transisto's logic, and he is an investor, something STEEM needs more of. As an investor, he is interested in bringing value to Steemit, and wants the rewards to go to posts that, in his eyes, bring value to Steemit. And, to him, the view counter is one way of measuring this.
I think this needs to be encouraged. Not enough whales care about the reward pool, or the long term value of Steemit/STEEM, at all.
People need to get over the idea that they are entitled to their potential payouts. This is long over due. The term "potential" is there for a reason. All payouts are subject to community/stake holder consensus, and during the payout period, people have the right to upvote and downvote as they please.
I can not, for the life of me, understand what it is about this that is so hard to comprehend for so many people.
This is not me kissing anybody's ass. Personally, I, too, post fiction on Steemit. They attract around 30-40 views on average. My other posts attract a lot more, and I know what to post to break the 200+ mark pretty consistently. I'm fine with the fact that fiction is not a huge draw on Steemit - since very few people read Steemit posts to begin with - and it's different type of content that attracts readers. I'm also way too lazy to promote my posts, or anything of that nature, in any way.
So, no, I don't post content that brings value to STEEM in @transisto's eyes, and that's totally okay.
I think a lot of people are overvaluing their posts on Steemit in general. Go anywehre else on the internet, and a blog post that gets 30 views is valued at precisely $0.
Steemit is this unique thing that can make posts like that valuable, but it doesn't mean they hold any value in the real world.
Personally, if a story chapter of mine that stood at 30 views, attracted a vote from one big whale, and got rewarded to $150 for example, I'd be totally fine with someone deciding to flag it to around $30 or whatever. If a large stake holder digs it, great - but at the same time, all other stake holders are entitled to disagree with the rewards.
And it's the resulting consensus that ultimately determines the final payout.
I generally post two types of posts:
- My story chapters, because it's fun
- Whatever happens to amuse me at any given time
Any payouts I make are a bonus.
Of course I like money as much as the next guy, but I'm not entitled to anything. Steemit doesn't owe me anything.
Steemit and the reward pool are not about me!
And they're not about you, either.
People always use the argument that it's "original work" and this, that and the other thing, but they fail to realize that there are tons and tons of people posting on Steemit that never attract whale attention, and make a few bucks, if that, per post. The rewards that one poster loses upon being flagged are not burned, they go to all the other posters not making a dime.
They post "original work", too.
That's not to say there aren't copy and paste artists raking in the rewards, we all know that there are. But this all goes back to there not being enough whales with the interest, or the balls, to really go against these people. And the community attacking big users flagging surely doesn't encourage doing that.
People could also think of it this way: if posts that bring value to the blockchain are encouraged and reward, then the smaller rewards made by other posts - such as my fiction - will grow as the price of STEEM grows in the future.
Now, I personally am not in the camp of believing that blog posts could really bring value to the blockchain to begin with, but that's another discussion. A lot of users here sure see to think that their posts are a godsent, and the platform would be doomed without them.
I'm not one of them, I'm perfectly fine admitting that my content is not needed on this platform. If you like what I post, awesome! But it's not like my absence would make a dent in anything. Also, I'd like to say that I'd appreciate genuine engagement more than bigger rewards, since my personal finances do not depend on Steemit. Everything I make is a nice bonus, and I think that's a healthy way of looking at Steemit rewards. That way, I don't take anything personally.
Recently, I've just sent my Steemit rewards to my sick mom to help her with her bills anyway.
Steemit is not your job, and if you truly are talented, you can find occupancy elsewhere, I would think. If you can't - hey, maybe you're just not as good as you think you are.
And I know I'm going to be getting those "Well, I guess you don't mind being flagged then!" people, and to them: No, I don't. Bring it.
However, conversation about this topic is welcomed! Agree? Disagree?
Leave a comment, let's talk.