Killer Whales: Self-Voting vs. the Bid-Bot (A Thought Experiment)
Well, ever since the bot takeover the entire nature of Steemit was radically altered. Hypothetically speaking, let's say you've got two people with the same amount of Steem power.
To keep it simple, none of the Steem power on either of the accounts comes from delegations. Both of these people are whales with a 100% up-vote weight valued at $100 SBD.
One of these whales decides to post content regularly, and self-votes his work, in hope of getting more SBDs in 7 days.
The other whale sells his Steem power on autopilot with the help of software in exchange for instant SBDs. They both do this because they are trying to make a profit, and they are both profiting.
At first glance, one appears to be more altruistic than the other, because many accounts are involved in the purchase of his vote value. Meanwhile, the other whale appears to some as selfish, because it is only him, voting for himself.
The end result is that the whale with the bot who sells his voting power, he never runs the risk of losing SBD from flags, because of the direct nature of the exchange. Who do you suppose will profit more?
The whale who is exposing himself to the risk of being flagged, or the whale who ducks that risk entirely, by selling his vote value directly?
Inquiring minds want to know, feel free to sound-off below!
Bonus Question 1: If with the power of their vote, they are both
successfully enriching themselves, then which is the moral one?Bonus Question 2: Is it immoral to enrich yourself on Steemit?
I think it depends on the quality of posts of the first whale :) If the posts are top quality then the risk of being flagged would be lower.
Interesting, what about the quality of the posts
that are being voted on by the second whale?
Does that come into play too?
Well, putting 100% votes on trash posts is something people don't like I believe but someone would actually have to notice it.
Do you have any thoughts about the actions of the second
whale; selling vote power, in exchange for instant SBD profit?
Isn't that the same thing as self-voting
for SBD profit, except without the risk?
Which whale is more moral?
I've also heard a rumor, that when the second whale doesn't sell all of his voting power he goes out and down votes successful posts (reward rape) so that his posts will be more valuable when they payout.
How do you feel about that?
I have no problem with vote selling. At least it helps other Steemians. Self voting helps only to self voter.
Why would anyone down vote other posts for no reason. I haven't heard about this yet...
Sneak downvoted me more than once, because he disagreed with my content, and he is a Steemit developer. That is why I created the FFF-SOS creed.
Randowhale downvoted @allasyummyfood, she just posted her experience about that here.
Apparently, this problem of downvote-spammers, or reward rapists, or people who engage in soft-censorship, or reward poolicing is becoming an epidemic on the Steemit UI.
Steemit devs, will many times hide behind the beauty of the uncensored nature of the Steem blockchain when the topic of censorship comes up.
This creates in people, a false perception that they don't engage in any form of censorship.
However, on the Steemit UI there is clearly a problem of soft-censorship, and anyone with enough Steem Power is able to soft-censor posts on the Steemit user interface.
Here is an example of what it looks like when a post has been soft-censored by a Steemit Dev.
I know many will disagree, but I think the moral way to make money would be for #1 to:
Let me explain why. in the end it is the quality of content that determines the value of the platform. It is the integrity of curation that is crucial for the quality of content. Both the bid bots and the use of disproportional self-upvotes on blog posts will hurt the integrity of the curation system and with that the value of the platform.
Upvoting comments may be frowned upon by many as reward pool rape, and i think they are right about that part, it isn't the reward pool rape that is the real problem, it's destroying the curation system's integrity and allowing subpar content to get top listing that is a problem to the long-term value of the platform as a whole.
When in Sodom, be a Sodomite.
This comment has received a 50.00 % upvote from @steemdiffuser thanks to: @stimialiti. Steem on my friend!
Above average bids may get additional upvotes from our trail members!
Get Upvotes, Join Our Trail, or Delegate Some SP
You got a 50.00% upvote from @greengrowth thanks to @stimialiti! You too can use @GreenGrowth by sending your post URL in the memo field to the bot. Minimum bid is 0.01.
If you feel this post is spammy or not worthy of @Greengrowth you can contact a moderator in our Discord Channel https://discord.gg/6DhnVTQ.
You got a 5.13% upvote from @adriatik courtesy of @stimialiti!
Thank you for sharing your perspective on the matter @pibara!
As a follower of @followforupvotes this post has been randomly selected and upvoted! Enjoy your upvote and have a great day!
Ooh this is good. Well certainly the one delegating the SP out will have less risk, and may certainly come out ahead if flagging is involved. The self vote is worth more though, if nobody flags. (By a factor of about 2, depending on bot specifics).
If you ask me, I would prefer the second whale, because it spreads out the wealth more. Still I'm sure people are not happy with that due to being anti bot in the first place, but in the end I find the opposition to be always about the misappropriated values on the posts. Well that and the whale just pocketing lots of cash for the service, but compared to the self vote, still strictly better.
There are also ways to counter the second whale by targeting the delegated services, but that's admittedly much harder to handle.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts @eonwarped!
Unfortunately there is no such thing AS moral in money :(
Thanks for your feed back @brakan!
I think the whale who sells his vote is good as he is even helping others I think.
But the whale who is self voting is just exploiting steemit powers.
I think its more like 'with great power comes great responsibility' kind of thing.
I hear you @anikentmore1925, and I appreciate your feedback!
Do you think that if Spiderman asked people for money, before he saved them, would he be a hero, or just a hired webslinger?
-or-
What if Spiderman had super powers, but simply chose not to become a superhero?
Would that make him a bad guy for not doing something good with his ability?
Have you ever had the ability to help out a homeless
person, but chose to keep your money instead?
If so, did that make you a bad guy?
Do we have the natural right, to choose if we
want to help people with our steem power?
Those are all valid questions.
But I think if we have the power why waste it.
We should spend it on anyone.
After thinking about your questions, I think it's all a matter of personal choice about how to use your power.
Nothing is truly right or wrong.
Interesting feedback!
If there is at least one guiding principle
worth adopting I think FFF-SOS has it.
Maybe check it out if you get the chance.
There is a famous quote about principles.
"A man who stands for nothing willfall for anything." ― Malcolm X
If that quote is true FFF-SOS might have
exactly what you need. Thank you again
for sharing your insights on this topic!
I just checked @FFF-SOS.
They are cool persons on steemit I think.
Thanks :)
@originalworks