You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Mutual Witness Report - Who Hasn't Voted You Back?
Do you make decisions about who you vote for as a witness based on how it dierectly impacts you or based on the value that witness brings to the community?
If your criteria for witness votes revolves around who reciprocates your vote, I have to question whether you understand what secures a DPOS chain and what destroys it. If the top witnesses only vote based on reciprocation, how is that different than a ruling class which keeps themselves in power instead of empowering those who provide the most value to the network of users? Vote buying destroys the integrity of DPOS and making voting decisions based on reciprocation and not benefit to the network could be seen as a form of vote buying.
Luke, I had exactly the same concern when I read the original suggestion for this and you have articulated what I considered responding perfectly here. The last thing the blockchain needs is a witness circlejerk - we all see how that goes down in general day to day steem operations.
Unfortunately @jerrybanfield either didn't see my comment or feel the need to reply. He's now a top 20 witness who (in the past) openly participated in vote buying and has changed his votes based on how people vote for him. This, to me, is a concern which should be addressed by the community. I've had a number of personal conversations with Jerry prior to making this comment.
Other DPOS chains have been harmed by this activity and there's talk of the EOS chain not allowing vote-buying directly in their constitution. We have to police this activity ourselves and make it clear why it's destructive. Votes for witnesses (and for posts) should be communicating a signal, not noise. If people are paid to vote, then there is no signal. It all becomes noise. Payment comes in many forms, including rewarding someone with a reciprocal vote which translates into witness pay.