Self-voters can achieve an interest of 248% APR!!
![selfvoting3.png](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://steemitimages.com/DQmPe2uafhkqtkW6fEs81jkJDaHFASK6ZaUcnLLvaT1xf7N/selfvoting3.png)
Yes, here it is the SELF-VOTING constant. As you may know, the proof-of-brain is the core of Steemit, you need to prove that you have the knowledge, that you are intelligent, that you have a brain in order to receive rewards. And you prove that contributing with something valuable. This is what makes STEEM valuable despite its inflation.
Is it possible to cheat the system and be rewarded without proof-of-brain? One of the ways is the Self-voting in its maximum expression. I'm not telling about the self-vote after the publication of a well-elaborated post, but the abuse of self-voting. For instance, suppose a BOT that publishes posts with no important content (posts like "Hi I'm a bot. End") and upvotes himself. The question is: How profitable is it? Is it worth cheating the system? Let's see the numbers.
Use of the voting power
The voting power is regenerated at a rate of 20% per day. Then the best way to use it is consuming it at a rate of 20% per day. Additionally, the worth of the vote is proportional to the voting power, the more voting power the more the vote will be worth. In this sense, it is better to keep it 100%.
Suppose the voting power at 100%. Then an upvote will consume 2% of it. How long does it take to regenerate?
![1](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/47/ql_0affc2e8f196fbdd099da1a540740847_l3.png)
Then the best option is to take a self-vote every 144 minutes with a weight of 100%. He just has to publish anything, with any text (no proof-of-brain), either in a post or a comment.
Reward of a single vote
Denoting Vp
as the voting power, SP
as the steem power, w
as the weight of the vote, the worth of the vote is:
![2](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/e6/ql_cf53d7dd2326a1cfc5b40686b70090e6_l3.png)
where g
is a global variable of steem (for details see this post). If we vote using a weight of 100% every 144 minutes, the voting power will be 100%. In this order, the formula is as follows.
![3](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/0a/ql_7971511956f71c86d02386cd1aa28c0a_l3.png)
The self-voter is both the author and the curator, then 100% of the worth of the vote will be the reward. Note that it is proportional to the steem power.
Compound interest
Now, let's take that the generated rewards are claimed every 5 days, and those gains are added to the initial steem power. In this sense, we have a compound interest.
In 5 days the rewards will be:
![4](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/63/ql_c9510278632142665066f280410b0563_l3.png)
A year has 365 days, which are 73 periods of 5 days. Then after a year, the self-voter will have:
![5](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/3a/ql_1d4220edbef9e9ccaa9ed92ebb24e03a_l3.png)
Calculation of g
In order to calculate g
we have to access steemd.com and take the following 4 values:
![recent_claims.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmWFjt4Dcsj3HqZD6KbNzfykpLrQ6U8QGVoqpxiQuYBgoM/recent_claims.jpg)
![total_vesting_shares.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://steemitimages.com/DQmdAATAHNNmb4deCFirsSLnjyKonXB38Bjtvf8k7E6Lz1i/total_vesting_shares.jpg)
total_vesting_fund_steem
: 198267727.562 STEEMtotal_vesting_shares
: 406099974728.553817 VESTSreward_balance
: 703878.279 STEEMrecent_claims
: 369495749226.845013 VESTS
Note that on recent_claims
we need to move the decimal point 6 positions to the left in order to convert it to VESTS. After that, we apply the following formula:
![6](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/0b/ql_004a908949419e614f28c3d963206d0b_l3.png)
Applying this to the formula of interest compound we found:
![7](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/ab/ql_27b1b36e6466e19a6bc07b45643fb1ab_l3.png)
This represents an increase of 32.88% (much more than my bank can give me). These values of the blockchain change over time and they depend on several factors, like the number of posts published, and the operations of power up and power down.
Internal price and market price
As I mentioned in a previous post there is an internal price, where the blockchain believes that 1 SBD is 1 USD, and an external price, the real price of the SBD in the market. Currently, the SBD is overvalued, then there are more profits if we take rewards in 50/50.
Let’s see an example. Suppose that the self-voter take the rewards in 50/50. The blockchain wants to give him 8 STEEM, then he receives 4 STEEM POWER, and the other 4 STEEM are transformed into SBD. But the blockchain uses the internal price (see it at steemd.com), which currently is 6.036 SBD/STEEM
. Then after multiplying we obtain: 6.036 x 4 = 24.144 SBD
. After that, he can exchange it in the market, but the market uses another price, the real price, which currently is 0.77 SBD/STEEM
(see it at https://steemit.com/market). Then he obtains: 24.144 / 0.77 = 31.356 STEEM
.
As you can see the 50% of the payment was 4 STEEM POWER, but the other 50% can be transformed into 31.356 STEEM POWER. There are a big difference and a big change for the self-voters. The question is: How much can they earn in 1 year?
Let pi
be the internal price, and pe
the external price, then the reward after 5 days is:
![8](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/d5/ql_9bf230167af1e761c45f40c6b40af0d5_l3.png)
In this order
![9](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/11/ql_fe9314bdd7ede7ef1a232e823b328b11_l3.png)
This is much more profitable, and means 248.36% of interests of the initial investment!!. Of course, this gain depends on the price of the SBD remaining stable for one year. But it represents the actual APR for self-voters.
Look the self-voting constant
In summary, we have 2 formulas to get the annual interest for a self-voter. The first one is taking 100% power up:
![10](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/e7/ql_baafd5f2788517d364766c828c8e3be7_l3.png)
And the second, taking 50/50 and changing the SBD in the exchanges in order to put everything in power up:
![11](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/http://quicklatex.com/cache3/50/ql_304704b009effba22c23222f34961650_l3.png)
I called this values the SELFVOTING CONSTANT. I also developed a web where you can consult it. Enter to https://joticajulian.github.io/selfvoting-constant/ to see it.
![selfvoting-constant-web2.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmdb3oTw4cMSVeVtcjtbgtgSWL6rNcUBQGkcZBGAuqzxsm/selfvoting-constant-web2.jpg)
After making these calculations it seems incredible what can be achieved with the SELF-VOTING without proof-of-brain. I clarify that my intention is not to encourage its use, but rather to open the eyes to the community to take it into account in future hard forks.
Important note: As @andrejcibik mentioned, Pure self-voting is selfish and community does not like it. If you steal rewards for bad content, you will get downvoted.
Posted on Utopian.io - Rewarding Open Source Contributors
So does that mean newbies should comment and then upvote?
Or upvote, reply, and then comment and upvote?
This analysis is both for minnows and whales. My recommendation for the good of the community is to use the self-vote honestly, only in cases that you consider that your contribution has an important value :)
isn't there any rule to control upvoters?
The unique way to control self-voters is through flaging.
Do you think it's wise idea for newbies to upvote themselves?
The self-voting is good if you are upvoting good content, valuable comments. Then my answer is yes, it is good idea.
On the other hand I think that one of the best practices for newbies is to comment posts. Check this.
I agree - if you go to popular pages and comment on posts people with high voting power and steem power are likely to see your comments- agree with you and upvote your comments.
![](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://media1.tenor.com/images/c6c50a275736a9c45c6003fd3b908be3/tenor.gif?itemid=4423036)
Muchas gracias ,el aporte esta bastante sustentado y en sintesis podemos decir que toda accion dentro de la plataforma tiene un respaldo matematico , nada esta programado por coincidencia . Ahora bien mi duda es la siguiente , si cada 144 min (tiempo ideal entre autovotos) una whale vota por si misma , suponiendo que tenga un poder de voto bastante elevado (obviamente) , no tendria preocupacion alguna de mantener un perfil interesante o productivo , pudiera esta ser flagelada por la comunidad ?
Excelente pregunta. Toda acción de este tipo despierta la indignación de toda la comunidad, y más si se trata de una ballena. Por tanto la reacción natural de todos es usar la bandera para reducir dichos abusos. Ya se han dado casos anteriores, como con @ozchartart, donde el mismo @dan se quejaba y bandereaba, y recientemente ha habido un gran revuelo con @haejin (aunque no sé si justificado o no).
Sin embargo, algo que no mencioné en el post es que para una ballena es muy fácil esconderse de la comunidad y mantener un bajo perfil. Simplemente basta con publicar un post, dejar que pase el tiempo y no tenga ninguna popularidad, para luego usar dicho post de nicho para publicar solo comentarios y autovotarse. Como sabrás, los comentarios no salen en el trending topic y si se hacen en un post olvidado será muy difícil cazarlo. A nivel de recompensas un comentario es lo mismo que un post, y a parte de eso puedes comentar tantas veces quieras sin importar si el post madre ya cumplió su plazo de 7 días. ¿Sorprendente no? yo estimo que existen muchas cuentas que están haciendo eso actualmente y la comunidad no se da cuenta.
La verdad es que si es bastante curioso , podemos concluir que la tecnologia es una simple herramienta , dependera siempre de la condicion humana el poder o no crear un mejor mundo.
Exactamente. Muy bien dicho. Es difícil hacer un sistema perfecto, poco a poco se puede ir perfeccionando y mejorando, pero todo siempre dependerá del buen uso que le dé el hombre.
Thanks for your maths. I never understood in the first place why we need self-voting. It opens the doors for abuse. What do you think, can we get rid of this option ?
https://steemit.com/self-voting/@johano/that-s-why-we-need-a-self-voting-option
It is difficult to answer that. If we eliminate this option the people can easily create different account to vote each other (as you mention in your post), then it is as if we had not eliminated it.
One option to reduce it is come back to the squared reward for authors, as it was before the HF19. I need to read more about that model.
Excelente contribución. Siempre clarificando el intrincado sistema de Steemit. Esperemos que como dices se tome en cuenta esto para futuros forks por que de este modo uno solo puede decir... ¡No me tientes satanás!
Por cierto ahí va mi pregunta. En uno de tus post mencionaste que uno podía llevarse mas de lo que otorgaba con la curación si votaba exactamente a los 30 minutos, no había votos y además el post llegaba alto. Entonces si me voto a mi mismo a los 30 minutos y se cumplen las condiciones ¿Quiere decir que me puedo llevar aún mas que con un autovoto instantáneo?
Hola @zenkly gracias por comentar.
No. Te llevas exactamente lo mismo. Recuerda que cuando haces autovoto eres tanto el autor como el curador. En el autovoto a los 30 minutos estás haciendo que 75% vaya al autor y 25% al curador. En el autovoto instantáneo estás haciendo que el 100% de tu curación vaya al autor. Como las 2 personas son la misma da igual. Esto en el caso que durante 30 minutos nadie más vote.
Pero suponiendo que dentro de los primeros 30 minutos hay más personas que votan entonces es mejor el autovoto instantáneo, ya que mientras más temprano sea el voto mejor es la curación en el caso de posts populares.
Is it ok to vote ones own comment to be listed above all other comments without any votes?
Hi @street.yoga thanks for your comment. I think it is a good idea, but only if you consider that your comment is important.
Got it, joking around, no selfupvoting (even though laughter is the best medicine🤔), giant leap for mankind stuff, selfupvoting😆
Te estoy siguiendo @jga ¿El auto voto difiere mucho de votar por la publicación minutos luego de haber sido publicada , siendo esta carente de valor ? Saludos desde Venezuela
Hola @sawko, gracias por comentar. Votarse a si mismo luego de pasados varios minutos también es considerado un autovoto, así que es lo mismo.
Vale, gracias por tu respuesta , estaré pendiente de tus publicaciones para seguir aprendiendo
Hola, también hay otro tipo de situación que vale la pena mencionar, el caso de 2 o mas ballenas que intercambian votos entre si y no votan ninguna otra publicación por que en este caso seria como un autovoto encubierto mediante la asociación de ballenas, ¿que opinas al respecto?
A veces yo me he puesto a pensar ¿y si quitamos la opción de autovoto? pero luego pienso en lo que acabas de decir, no logramos nada porque podrían darse votos mutuos entre 2 cuentas diferentes.
Y luego me he puesto a pensar ¿y si obligamos a que crezca dicho círculo de votación? es decir, poner algún tipo de regla que haga que si votas siempre a las mismas personas poco a poco tu voto tenga menos valor. Supongamos que todos los días yo voto únicamente por Juan, pues que si al primer día mi voto valía $1, al cabo de 30 días si continúo con esta práctica mi voto valga solo $0.5. Hacer que esta regla también se cumpla también en caso de un círculo de 3 o más personas que se votan entre sí. Es algo a lo que le doy vueltas a ver si sería viable... La desventaja sería que personas como tú o como yo estaríamos también obligadas a descubrir nuevos steemians y no quedarse votando o leyendo el mismo tipo de artículos.
Gracias por comentar. La idea es esa, debatir sobre el tema.
Excellent work!
The self-upvoting of brainless content is one thing, and that is bad enough. When several people like that ban together with hugely large amounts of leased steem power however... the problem compounds.
What do you think should be done about people coming in purposefully to upvote the lowest quality content just to game the system?
Should it be restricted by the community, or through suggested updates for a new hardfork?
It's one thing to be a newbie and not understand the upvoting mechanisms. It's however outright hostile if insta-whales make it their public mission on steemit to plunder the rewards and hype bad content just because they can. And everybody's hands are tied.
I followed, great article, thanks again.
Thanks for your comment. It is difficult to give a concrete solution to the problem. At this moment I am studying the rewards model prior to HF19, since several people mention that there it was more difficult to beat the system with the self-vote.
At this time there are some community actions to reduce these abuses. More and more flags are felt, and of great weight.
I feel so much less competent with the technicalities so I am thrilled to have you in my follow list. But you are right, maybe I should really read that whitepaper patiently for myself, most steemians may benefit from doing so. It's not like I am a tech noob, just relatively new to the space. And my math skills never exceeded the basics ;)
I will take the liberty in the future to relay to you when I have stumbled upon something significant that needs further analysis, and that I would like your input on if you don't mind.
I love Steemit because the competencies that are coming together here will be much more powerful than the sum of all the parts.
Have a great weekend jga.
Yes of course!! thank you