RE: 'Is Steemit Becoming a Welfare State'- Addressing the Heart of the Issue EDITED (Including an original song by my amazing brother that poses a question-a challenge-to us all)
As you pointed out, the cost of a vote market to the ecosystem is obvious: it creates a disparity between the quality of the content and its respective rewards. The weaker the correlation between content quality and the amount of rewards it receives, the less appealing the overall platform, and thus the lower the valuation of the Steem currency.
Unfortunately, due to the way the economic incentives are designed, the existence of a voting market is inevitable. This was foreseen by some of us from a very long way back.
Consider our system where everyone gets to vote on each other's work. As a voter, my vote can give, for example $1 to whomever I wish. Assume that there's a bit of stigma against self voting for larger holders preventing me transferring the value of the entire weight of my vote to myself 10 times a day (which is more or less true) then that means that my vote is worth $1 to anyone else except me. A rational and self interested investor would want to internalize as much of that value as they can, so they're happy to sell their $1 which they can't use on themselves for as much as they can.
On the demand side of the market, if I'm buying a vote, I'm pretty much happy to accept any price lower than what I'd get from the vote (barring risks in steem price fluctuations and delayed payout etc.) So if you're happy to sell me $1 for 80c, it's a no brainer that I'd want as much as I can afford.
Now, at perfect equilibrium, assuming everyone is acting solely in their own self interest, you'd expect the value of votes to be more or less perfectly internalized except for transaction cost (commission etc, and the aforementioned risks factors). This would likely have a $1 vote be worth around 90c or so. When this happens everyone will make nearly enough to meet inflation. This would also mean that they'd be absolutely no correlation between rewards and the quality of content rewarded, leading to the lowest possible Steem price (all other factors being equal).
Note this does not mean Steem will be worthless; it basically still has everything most other crypto currencies have as well as a platform/HUB thing with just random, mostly poor content. If it gains enough people to be part of the system, it can still be worth a lot. All else being equal however, it'll be worth the least amount it could be worth and be least successful at attracting interest to the platform.
So you basically have a classic game theoretical dilemma: if everyone acts in their own self interest everyone loses out because while the slice of the pie you get is optimal, the pie is very small. But individually, each player gains the most by acting selfishly, irrespective of how others are acting. So if 90% of people are playing fair and voting based on quality, but 10% of people are acting selfishly, the latter gain the most at the expense of the good actors, they get a larger piece of a larger pie.
Realistically, we won't get as bad as the worst possible outcome I don't think. We'll deviate from it due to a combination of irrational individual choices and rational group choices. That is to say the worst of us will still vote for a nice essay or funny meme from time to time, and they'll still be good actors, or at least actors not exploiting the most they possible could at any given time.
Bad news is it'll likely get worse before it finds its equilibrium, and also I don't see any viable solution, as that would ultimately involve reinventing the entire economic design of Steemit, and off the top of my head I can't come up with a better one. Everything before like vote trading etc. were all precursors to a voting market, as they all involve the same underlying idea of internalizing the value of one's votes. No reward curve shifting, or playing with the numbers, or attempt to separate bots from normal users, or even flagging is likely to sufficiently address this behavior that's encouraged by the fundamentals of Steem's economic design.
I don't buy votes, but I do vote on my own posts. I happen to believe, perhaps quite arrogantly, that having my content, both short and long, gain more exposure, is a good thing for the platform when compared to the average content on here. So aside from being irrationally non selfish or rationally altruistic at the group level, a third out is hope that the best content creators miraculously decide to buy up the most Steem one day, for the entire platform stands to gain a lot more when good content creators internalize the value of their votes rather than mediocre ones. To this end I'm surprised I have seen many, I initially bought Steem as an investment in myself as a content creator, yet I have not seen many others do this.
It's strange writing something that's not comedy on here. I was going to write a post about this, and may still do so, but I dislike being too serious and/or talk about Steemit too much as I find it to be dull content with limited reach. Still, I put a bit of effort here so true to form, I'm going to internalize some of this value myself haha :)
Okay, haha. First of all, I really like you, you know that. On a personal level, you're a funny, cool guy. Also, everything I'm about to say, understand that I'm not passing judgment on you.
I know in one of your posts I once told you that ideally we would live in a world where we asked "What can I do for you?" Rather than "What's in it for me?" I also most likely said what I always say, which is that unfortunately we don't live in that world. In fact that kind of Utopia is not likely to be seen--I will definitely say 'in my lifetime', though I have to wonder if it ever will be... on this plane of existence at least.
If it wouldn't hurt the platform, I wouldn't just think it was okay to upvote everything I did, I would think it was right to do so because we should be our own biggest chearleaders. (lol) Unfortunately it does hurt at this point. I understand what you're saying- you write great content so it does on one hand make sense for you to give it the value it deserves in order for it to be seen and reflect positively on the platform. But right now it's more about setting a precedent, because people are not seeing it the way you mean it or I just phrased it, instead they're viewing it as "See 'so and so' thinks it's fine to self upvote" and not at all taking into account the quality . For this reason my current belief is that ten percent self-voting is reasonable, but I'm aiming to lower that by monitoring my steemstats more closely. Now my vote is only worth a buck at full power, so it's obviously a lot easier to have that mindset then if it was worth closer to fifty like yours. But my husband has been talking about dumping some money on my account, and if that happens I will still work by this code for the time being, because more than anything, more than my present payouts for sure, I want to see this platform rise to its fullest potential by setting a good example. So taking the same rationale, of insuring that quality content gets the recognition it deserves, I'll just apply it to others instead of me. Again- for the time being. I don't consider myself irrationally unselfish, it's more a philosophy of 'being the change I want to see in the world.' I can't control other people's actions, I can't tell them to do what I do, the only power I have is over my own actions. And the only person I have the right to judge is myself too. So, that's where I'm at. Hopefully I articulated that well, I am a little sleep deprived, lol.
It might have come across as judgmental to make a point about buying upvotes, but it's not about that. I had read a bunch of posts and arguments on the subject, so I just decided to give my own thoughts, which is that I believe it's harmful, that it will hurt all of us in the long run. Because I believe that I feel I have to do what I can to at the very least not add to the problem, so not voting on those who buy their votes is basically what I can do. This doesn't mean I dislike anyone who's doing it.
Since almost the moment that I got here I have made friendships and connections all over the board. I'm not sure if you were around yet, for the huge fights regarding the guilds last winter/early spring, but I might have been one of the few people who managed to be friends with those who were enemies of one another at the time and manage to not piss anyone off, lol. In fact I was, still am, pretty close to everyone on the steemguild, but I was also close to probably their biggest critic. There's an argument somewhere on the blockchain between me and this critic, as I was defending my friends and he was shredding their character. But we hung out in steemchat later that day and were perfectly fine. I strongly feel that you can disagree with people and still be friends- another thing I preach and practice ;)
You do realize that a ton of people would see your comment and big self upvote and have a problem with it right? I'm not sure they'd have the balls to tell you that, or maybe it's less about balls and more about not wanting to piss off someone whose ass they'd rather kiss in hopes of getting some of that voting love turned their way ;)
Not that you should give a rat's ass what others think, haha, to each their own man, that is another thing I believe :)
But definitely consider, with the vote buying I mean- whether that has the potential to drive the price of steem way down as I think it will, since that will affect you negatively as well as everyone else in the long run.
Thanks for stopping by- truly, my 'house' got way cooler when you decided to come over :)