STEEMIT: Buy Votes, Get Paid!
@booster and @randowhale. You may have seen something about them on Steemit or even used them at some point. There may be other accounts that do this as well, but these are the ones I’m familiar with at the moment.
What are they? Essentially, you send them STEEM/SBD, and that account upvotes a post of your choice.
At first, I thought these were a cool idea, and have even used them a handful of times - A few times on my account, and a few times on others’ posts. At one point, I thought it was a great way to show your support for someone else’s post. But then I thought about it more and formed a new opinion.
Using one of these services to upvote my own post felt sleazy to me.
Let's think about this, what’s happening here?
I’m paying someone to upvote my post, which takes away rewards from every other user on the platform. @randowhale is getting rich, I earn a small profit, and everyone else gets hurt by way of lower rewards on their posts/comments.
Arguments in favor of "Pay for Upvote"
You could argue that people aren’t getting hurt, because if it’s not @randowhale using that voting power then someone else will. That might be true. Considering the fact that a significant percentage of the system-wide voting power goes unused, I think that argument lacks some substance.
Additionally, if all that voting power would otherwise be used, there’s a good chance the voting would be done by a human -
who's curating content they think is valuable. I think that type of human curation is far more valuable for Steemit than a glorified self-upvote.
You might also argue that since this service is extraordinarily profitable for the person(s) providing it, it will entice others to provide the service, which will result in a higher demand for STEEM. All else equal, more demand means a higher price. Rising price benefits all users, right? Well, the key here is all else equal.
Will users continue flocking to a platform if their perception of it changes to "Steemit: Buy votes, get paid"?
I don’t think so. I believe it will hurt the platform.
I don’t want Steemit to be a “Buy votes, get paid” platform
If you agree that this isn’t good for the platform, you have to incentivize others not to use these services! If this isn't done, these services will continue to be used.
How my behavior will be changing:
- If I see a post has been upvoted by @randowhale or @booster, I will not upvote that post.
- Now, if I really like a post, instead of buying them a vote I’ll be sending them a direct donation as a part of my Random Acts of Kindness campaign. This way, I can still show my support, no one gets hurt, and there’s no middleman.
At least 20% of the SBD earned from this post will go toward #RAK - Random Acts of Kindness.
SBD up for grabs! Check out my logo contest!
You actually don't earn a small profit from using randowhale...you lose money. You can see the detailed numbers here.
I don't disagree with your view that using the bots kind of ruins it and I don't want Steemit to be a buy vote platform either. But, it is what it is for the foreseeable future, so I'm trying to learn how best to navigate it.
Thanks for providing the numbers, I'll have to check out that post later when I have more time.
Over the handful of times I used randowhale, my vote recipients came out a little ahead, but I may have just got lucky when it came to strength of upvotes.
It may have come out a little ahead, but I'm guessing you have not accounted for some of the stuff that will come out of that. The author only gets 75% at the highest and there a payout fade as time goes by.
As I understand it, the price shown is based on the seven day average of the price of steem. The payout only fades as time passes if the price of steem is dropping. If the price of steem is increasing, then the payout grows with time.
The fade doesn't only happen because of price of Steem. The fade also happens because the amount of Steem that can be given out to authors/curators is a set amount. As more posts are created/upvoted, the less your content is worth.
For example, lets assume you have 1 marble and you put in a jar. There are 99 other marbles so you own 1% of the marbles. As the week goes on, more marbles get added to the jar by other people...so your 1 marble is now worth less than 1%.
I haven't read the code, but as I understand it, new steem is being added to the rewards pool at basicaly the same rate that the curation rewards are being given out. Similarly, your marble analogy ignores the fact that 7-day old posts are aging out of the pool at roughly the same rate that new posts are being added.
Since the number of rshares allocated for your post is constant and the size of the pool is (roughly) constant, the reason that the post's award appears to change is almost entirely due to the fluctuating price of steem.
If the number of rshares suddenly increased dramatically, the value of all other posts would decrease significantly.
I haven't looked into the numbers, but this could be a factor as well.
For instance, if the @freedom account started using all of it's voting power, every post it voted on would be worth a ton, and every post it didn't vote on would see a huge decrease in its payout.
True. I was oversimplifying. But those sorts of changes will tend to average out over time. My main reason for commenting was just to note that that the pending reward value can drift up as well as down.
You may be right....but if you are then it means the payout fade will stop now that it's been over 7 days since HF.
The reason I don't agree w the the theory that it's only because of Steem price is that the price went up last few days...until last night.
This is actually incorrect. The system is always creating new STEEM.
This can be true, but only if the number of rshares being distributed increases from the level it was at.
Consider checking out this post of mine (past payout) where I go over this stuff in more detail: https://steemit.com/steemit/@shenanigator/the-ultimate-guide-to-steemit-payouts
Yes, the system is always creating more Steem, but it's creating that Steem at a set amount.
That's correct. So if rshares stay constant, the value of current posts isn't affected.
However, if more people start voting (or just 1 big whale), the number of rshares will increase and the value of non-paid posts will fall.
This is true on a 24 hour basis only, not weekly. If it were true weekly, every payout would shrink, even if the price of steem stayed constant.
This is mostly correct, but there are other factors that affect the payout. In my post The Ultimate Guide To Steemit Payouts, I wrote the following:
Why does my future payout keep changing?
Upvotes will increase your payout and flags will decrease your payout. If you haven't received any new upvotes or flags, there are several other reasons why your payout may have changed:
There is a fixed amount of new STEEM created each week to be dispersed to users as rewards in a rolling 7 day period. At any given time, the system is making an estimate of how much you will be paid based on what percentage of Steem Power-adjusted votes your post possesses.
Let's pretend a piece of content is currently worth $5. But then, many other posts suddenly become highly-upvoted. The money to pay those popular posts needs to come from somewhere, so a portion of your post's value is reallocated to these newly-popular posts. Now your post may only be worth $4.50.
Another reason your payout may change is price movements in the 3.5-day moving average of STEEM. If the price of STEEM increases, the value of your post will increase, all else equal.
edited: messed up my link
If I had to guess, a lot of people don't factor this in, but I was accounting for curation rewards. Also, it's a minimum of 25% that goes to the author. I've had posts where >90% has gone to me, the author.
That will only be the case about half of the time. The other half, payouts increase as time goes on.
According to Steemit help, the author gets a minimum of 75%. Curators get max of 25%. https://steemit.com/welcome#Curation
I said:
You're correct, that was a typo. I meant "it's a minimum of 75% that goes to the author."
Interesting... I was unaware of this but I'm not surprised it's happening.
I imagine though, that if buying upvotes became a wide spread approach, that a market would develop around the price of upvotes. At first glance, my guess is that the price of an upvote would probably end up being greater than the amount that upvote would payout, since buying an upvote is not just buying a portion of the rewards pool.. but also attention. I imagine that the seller would be able to sell upvotes for significantly more than they would get from self-voting
So my guess is that people would end up buying upvotes at a financial loss. So then buying upvotes would become a method of promotion. This would mean that people would only buy upvotes for content that they considered worthy of promotion... hoping to see a return on their investment based on the attention they purchased.
The times I've purchased the votes from randowhale (maybe 8 or so), it was slightly profitable when taking everything into account. The one time I used booster, it wasn't profitable, but that has a different voting structure than rando. But, you may be right about where things are trending toward. I wouldn't be so against this if the STEEM/SBD were burned or if it was put into a Steem marketing fund or something similar.
Completely agree, Vote buying is a slippery slope.
Good point however many minnows who create good contents that never see the day light or get votes uses such program to boost their post as upvoting by whales is very difficult
@charles1, I feel like I am creating content that is valuable but "never see the day light." Going to have to rethink some things. I do not want my actions to hinder the overall effectiveness of the community.
I will keep pressing on, keep producing content and getting better, and keep engaging. Started following!
I wish you success
It is tough for newbies to get votes, no doubt about that. In my experience, there are two great ways to get ahead on Steemit:
Find users that need help on projects and do what you can to help them. You'll make friends and friends means upvotes. Also, use the same philosophy when you apply the 2nd method:
Read peoples' posts, leave thoughtful comments, and engage in meaningful interactions. This will make you friends and it will get you followers. Followers don't mean a darn thing if they're inorganic (like follow for follow crap). But, getting organic followers will result in more upvotes.
Good point however not all minnows know this strategy or even want to put in too much work in it. I started 3 weeks ago and have seen success in folowers and engagement because I invested time and effors in building relationships.
Thanks for your response.
Yep, most people want to be successful, but few are willing to put in the work. The odds are against you here if you aren't willing to grind.
Point, I agree
@shenanigator, I appreciate this post. In order to be fully transparent, I have used purchased 2 upvotes from @worldclassplayer over the last week. I have also requested upvotes from PAL as well.
I am going to rethink my position on this. As a minnow, I am trying to engage, but progress is slow. It seems that when you get some traction behind a post, people are more likely to take a second look. That was my reasoning for buying an upvote.
I would not want everything on Steemit to move in that direction, but at the same time I want to utilize community accepted practices to grow my influence on Steemit. Thanks for the thoughts! I am still processing.
Hey, thanks for reading. I can't hold it against anyone for buying votes like this because I've done it myself. But, after some introspection and analyzation, these projects aren't going to get any more support from me.
There are some solutions out there for minnows and newbies, one is minnowsupport and another is @curie. Both projects helped your post from today gain traction (although the curie project did most of that). As you interact and post more, you'll gain followers, and you should start to see more success. It's a slow process, but if you're consistent, success should come.
@shenanigator, thanks for everything today. I appreciate the time you took today to help this minnow out!
I concur - I did the same just to test the waters. Now that I can get a sense of people views that will help and over time, as in nature, minnows grow.
If it's profitable and people are able to get away with it, I figure they will keep on doing it. But I'm with you, these kinds of services are not effective or "smart" delegation of Steem.
Actually, I think there's some doubt that these bots ARE profitable.
Are you saying you don't think it's profitable to operate one of these bots? Or profitable to buy a vote from one?
I am not convinced it is profitable to employ one.
Yep, completely agree! If it's profitable, people will use them.
If the community agrees with me, they have to make sure it's not profitable for people who use these services. I don't have the voting power to flag every post that these accounts upvote, but what I can do is refuse to upvote any post that has already been upvoted by one of these accounts.
Normally things had to be the way you describe and have nobody to need such services to boost his post. On the other side the fact is that not all users are equal in steemit. There are users that have steem power and vote power and users that do not have. People with that steemit power make $100s on whatever they post or they curate, regardless if it is good or bad. On the other side all the other users especially the minnows earn almost nothing. I find every day amazing posts of people with little steem power that end with a couple of dollars, have very few views e.t.c. because they do not have the power to make their post trending or popular and have many more people to see it and upvote. So here is a real problem because steemit users are not equal in the steemit environment and very few have the money to buy Steem and steem power. Services like the ones you describe in your post may help them a little and give them the satisfaction that earned something for their hard work. I am with you, that the ideal would be as you describe but when you have not any other choice then you must do something ...
@dogitalking I totaly agree with you. I am one of the newbies on Steemit and have no power. I haven't used these kind of services because I find them not fair, but on the other hand I research, write posts, spending all my free time and have no results. Last three posts were seen by 5 to 20 people. Do you have any advice for members like me?
You do put out some great stuff! I submitted your latest post to @curie, and I see it just got approved.
Thanks for your comment. I know how frustrating it can be.
I think there are better options for supporting newbies, and I believe these "pay for votes" projects are going to hurt Steem, in general. If I'm right about them hurting Steem, that will negatively effect every user of Steem/Steemit, even the newbs.
You should familiarize yourself with @curie. You could support these amazing posts and earn a lot of STEEM while doing so.
Thats great. I did not know about @curie. Thats a good alternative. In general i agree with you if there are other options. Thank you.
I've been using randowhale and seeing how much value gets added each time, and it appears it's very slightly +EV for someone to use, but as you said it hurts the rest of the pool not using it.
I was going to write a similar post but stopped myself because I thought maybe there was a chance randowhale was destroying the steem sent to him (is that even a thing still?), which would be cool, and I didn't want to post without researching it first. I assume that isn't the case though, which means randowhale or whoever backs him is just making bank for making a simple bot. Definitely need to stop it
I'm new, three times read Your post, and I still have questions unanswered.
When I read the introductory posts about these bots, they positioned themselves as supporting the minnows. That You are the type make a small contribution to the common pool of awards (albeit tiny :D). In the end, get feedback on Your content, and the ability to oversee.
It turns out, that initially given the wrong message? And these two propiarenny site take payments from a pool of rewards?
All the rewards on Steem come from the same pool. Therefore, if one person gets paid more, everyone else gets paid a little bit less.
The services could help minnows - If you read some of the comments here, you'll see that some people feel like it helps their posts get some attention.
Overall, I think the existence of these bots are bad for the platform, and minnows are better served in other ways.
Hmmm. I got to thinking.
Honestly, I think my posts are good, but until I not see a strong focus. For this reason often publish photos of my animals and ColorChallenge :=))). But I think with levels above fifty, I will reconsider my attitude to these bots.
@bluerthangreen was trying to tell me the same thing. I didn't see the harm. I think I get it now. Thanks for explaining.
Glad it helped you out. Thanks for reading!
Thanks for writing great content! And for the RAC I received :)