In Response to @steemvoter and the community regarding an "Attack" on SteemVoter.
It is sad to hear people who are questioning a reward system, being called an "attack". I can only speak for myself, however, I politely pointed out why I thought the steemvoter daily posts were overpaid and I flagged them, it decreased the value by 4 cents, and brought awareness to the issue. I also entered a comment with the stats of the posts. I wanted to people to question the value of the post and it's rewards. If users are fine with the rewards, they can continue to use the service. The transparent nature of our decentralized platform allows people to see how businesses on our platform are functioning and the SteemIt platform allows us to discuss how this beta project is going.
If I understand your service correctly, people use your service to perform auto curation. Although I am not a fan of this, I know it won't stop. @thecryptodrive also crowd funded the steemvoter account asking the community to purchase this business application for him. Now Steemvoter makes daily posts and uses the votes of the community to pay his business. At this price the value of the posts are not that much, but the whole community pays out of the reward pool to fund this business with votes EVERY day. I am not at all jealous of your success, I would like the people who use your service to find a different way to pay you without utilizing the already small reward pool each day.
Here is just one of several crowd funding posts that were made asking the community to purchase this application.
https://steemit.com/steemvoter/@thecryptodrive/steemvoter-com-business-rescue-crowdfund
There is nothing wrong with people freely giving money to help you buy this application. For transparentcy, I want people to remember what the thoughts were on funding this at the time.
Specifically regarding @steemvoter voting on a new comment on a 3 month old post, which was used to test the system
The post is here, and it originally had a value of over $95.00
https://steemit.com/spam/@marcgodard/steemvoter-com-stats-dec-4th-2016
The answer by Steemvoter is they only used their one vote a day to upvote this comment. Although this is likely true where is the value in this? It is only to ensure he has the ability to pay himself if under "attack" (Which an inflammatory way to say people voiced an opinion on his daily post.
There were others who voted on his posts that did not sign up for the service. I don't believe he did ANYTHING wrong or stole keys, I think, someone who has a voting trail, voted on the post, and so those who do not use the service to vote, ended up on the trail, thus voting. Again, I want to be very clear: I don't think Steemvoter used anyone's vote with out permission.
@thecryptodrive I do think you are a very smart man, and wish you success in the future, and I am sorry you see me posting my opinion and the stats as to who is viewing your posts as an attack. I saw it as educating the community. Happy New Year.
The reason I am questioning the things I am questioning is because I care about the future of SteemIt. There is a reason the same accounts trend every day it is because they receive the same votes every day. My concern is for the Rewards Pool, User Retention and the value of Steem in the long run. Yes, value is subjective, which is why I was making comments about the stats of these posts that trend everyday and how much the community is interacting with those accounts for educational reasons.
I could jump on "the.masses" or make another anonymous posts, but I am choosing to use my voice under my own account no matter what the outcome. Please consider the messaging you are receiving about "Attacks" and "Angry Mobs", "Crusaders". I am a concerned citizen of SteemIt, and I think I conduct myself quite well in this community.
I have a distaste for bots, but I also have a distaste for punitive flagging outside things like fraud and spam. I guess this is all part of the growing pains of this new platform.
Agreed. I totally get your point of view. I have been completely opposed to flagging as well. Until the Steemsports and Steemvoter issue came up I have never flagged anything.
The bots are an accepted part of the community, so we can only challenge their behavior with our votes, either up or down. :)
Then you need to look at the complete picture. By simple arithmetic, it's easy to see that steemvoter is good for the platform and particularly for authors. If steemvoter gets 1 vote per day out of 40 for each account, that's 2.5%. Of the remaining 97.5%, authors get at least 75%... More if the voter votes before 30 minutes, which I suspect most bot voters do. Similarly, compared to hundreds or thousands of authors who receive votes from steemvoter accounts each day, the author reward share of the steemvoter daily posts is negligible. The daily post is more visible because the votes are all focused in one place, but you can't ignore all those other benefits just because they are harder to observe.
For example, until today, you were on my steemvoter voting list for several months because I thought that your posts were generally good for the platform, and I wanted to support your writing. In terms of rewards, who benefitted more from that? You, me, or @steemvoter? The same can be said for each of the 60 or 70 authors on my list, all of whom are there so that I can support people who I think bring value to the platform.
I understand your position. Thank you for taking the time to express your point of view and explaining why you took me off your voting list.
I am perfectly fine with not receiving your votes. If you don't like what I write about. (That is what the platform was intended for) When I came to SteemIt, it was because it was interesting and a potential investment.
I have never pretended to be an Author, and I have no interest in surviving from blogging. I came here to check out an investment opportunity.
I appreciate that you took the time to line out your view and the math, and the ability to have a polite conversation about it, even if we disagree. Take care and I hope the platform is very profitable for you.
I kept thinking about your answer, and how you think it is ME who doesn't understand the system.
You explained how I would reap the benefit of your vote from Steemvoter. I am not thinking about just me, that is short sighted and not beneficial for the community in the long run. So, imagine how much more would be in the reward's pool to distribute, not to me specifically, but to the entire community if SteemSports/Steemvoter and Ozcharts wasn't taking their cut first.
You see, I wasn't going to address it, but the entire rewards pool is distributed every day, no matter how many people vote. So, if only 1 person voted on one post, that person would receive the entire rewards pool for the day. Imagine if these "trending accounts" weren't getting the same share of the pool EVERY DAY, how much more there would be to distribute.
See, you think I, personally want the rewards pool, and your vote. That is where you are missing my point. I want as much as the reward pool as possible to go to the end-users who are writing, reading and building the platform, because that is where the pay off to the invest lays. Not in a post.
My point was not about you in particular, but about how automated curation increases the value of STEEM, as an investment. STEEM needs authors who write quality articles. In turn, authors need curators. Without steemvoter, there would be thousands of less votes per day, which means that author rewards would be all the more centralized. I simply used your account as an example of how the incentives flow. Sorry if it came across as criticism. I absolutely didn't mean it that way.
No, I didn't see it as criticism, but just another way to view how our investments will pay off. Although your view is very factually accurate as far as what value I would receive from your vote, it is phrased in a way which makes it seem like I misunderstand the system. The very point of my post is that we can and should be able to discuss it.
I want you to show me the math and question my position. In turn, I want to think about it, and learn from it, and present my response. I consider that communication.
The community is free to vote on, enroll and do what they want with their voting power. I just want to be able to discuss it. There is NO attack in what I am saying. It is just getting people to understand how the rewards are paid. Thank you again for continuing the conversation.
good blog @whatsupfirst i want to thank you for rising this issue , there is unfairness and some time give me nausea
Same happened in facebook and twiter , there will be always some people cheating or doing anything to be in the top ( am talking in genral )
I think if we treat Steemit as a market it will go no where , but only if we really care about it being decentralized social media witch every one get eqiual chance and rewarded fairly then steemit will grow
you are standing on point of care for steemit core value witch is decentralization , and the tend to centralization is annoying you , me and many other , i hope that will resolve when more people come and more dev happened
Cheers , am not trying to blame anyone for anything , just want steemit to evolve
The stakeholders are going to accept and support behavior they want to keep on the platform. After that it is just a decision for everyone else to decide what is either:
1: Fun and Interesting
2: A good investment of time
3: A good investment of money
It will play out over time.
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jan 02. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $7.68 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 02 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.