I've been writing about this too. Some say that whales do these things, so they must be okay, but we each make our own judgement. I want to see Steemit grow and empower millions of people, but I see a lot of greed here. There's a quick buck to be made and people will take it. That could adversely affect the platform as others may be put off when they see its not about quality.
I see you bought a vote for this. Was that to get seen? I expect you would get good votes anyway
Hey steevc,
I think if the large accounts want to drain the rewards they can. I also think as a community should talk about it. I think future and current investors can take a look at the situation and make a decision. For me the transparency and ability to discuss what is happening are what makes this "not a ponzi". Investors can be informed if they choose to.
I do buy votes. I buy them to get visibility and to improve my stake. When vote buying first came into the picture, I used them rarely on what i thought were my most important posts. Now I use them regularly.
On this post, I used a bit more because I knew some of the people who I wanted to see it, wouldn't - without getting some activity.
I've made the decision to not buy votes. I'll just take what comes in anyway. It's not all about money. I've seen people pay 50 sbd for a vote. That's not just for exposure
Understood and respected. The high demand for the voting bots was created directly by the way the larger accounts have managed their stake.
Many want to complain about some small users gaining stake via the bots, while money pours out of the platform via large accounts.
One of the biggest problems is the distribution being held by so few people, and they tend to vote for each other and together. I'm cheering for anyone who can get a few extra steem. :) Including the occasional small scammer. After all Smooth and other witnesses would rather burn Steem than distribute it through our current system. Hard to pretend we are building a blogging site at this point. However, with communities and SMTs, there is still plenty of hope.
@whatsup - The large accounts are interesting. Some distribute their upvotes/wealth around to many people. Others upvote just themselves or a small group of other whales and take out the money.
I've only been involved in Steemit for 4+ months and am a minnow but here is my 2 cents worth:
Many people hold to ideal beliefs and want a totally deregulated system that will police itself. I fell into this category when I started.
However there are a group of significant wealth holders who are abusing the system to their own gain and hurting the overall Steemit community. There have been quite a number of posts about this. Occasionally someone like @berniesanders goes after them by flagging. There is a "war"; some reconciliation is made.....but then the abuse continues.
@whatsup - I and many others appreciate your posts on bringing this matter to everyone's attention. But the people abusing the system continue. They are not the ones caring about your concerns. So what to do?
IMO, some regulation is needed by the coders of Steemit so it lessens the potential abuse. I know this goes against the ideal of total deregulation, but some regulation is needed. Some regulation....not a "Big Brother" mentality.
I liken this situation to the growth of large monopolies in the U.S. Having large successful companies that employ a lot of people is good for the economy. But when they abused their power and wealth, some anti-trust laws were made for the good of the country as a whole.
There has been a lot of talk; there has been some efforts made to correct the situation but they haven't been fruitful in accomplishing long-term what they tried to do. So, IMO, some action is needed by the founders to bring back a balance in the system. This will benefit EVERYONE....long-term.
It is a stake based system and most want Crypto projects to be decentralized. So, I don't think the founders are going to save us.
It is up to the community to figure it out. Ned has communicated that with his actions.
I can understand his sentiments. There is an old saying, "The World is as you are." So that is how Ned would be and how he would work it out. But all people are not like him.
He controls around 50% of the stake on the platform.
A minority are taking a large portion of available rewards by various means. They could choose to support good content with votes and delegation. If we all race for maximum profit then steemit will lose all credibility. I'm in for the long term. I've done pretty well so far, but it could be a very different place in another year. I'm still optimistic and building my sp to do what I can to help
I am also in it for the long haul. I didn't even use a voting bot until about 3 weeks ago. I was posting, commenting, manually curating, voting, flagging, etc. One whale even noticed that I was doing manual curation and began to follow my voting trail, with one exception. He didn't value what I was doing enough to vote for me. I appreciated his voting strength anyway.
My posts get a lot of activity and my account is too small to make a difference.
Why should I be more concerned about the platform than those who can make a bigger difference?
With Dan and others powering down for EOS, and the level of abuse that everyone is being taught to ignore. I decided that wasn't my best strategy on the platform.
I still vote, post, comment and engage, I've just decided it is my responsibility to ensure I also get to earn.
Look at the trending page, I am hardly abusing the system. I am building my stake.
I'm not attacking you. I just state my opinions, but everyone does what they want. We are just small fish, but I think we have some influence. The whales are people too. I hope enough of them want to help Steemit reach its potential
lol, I don't feel attacked by you. I do think I am trying to make a point to others who might see this as well.
I appreciate you and your contribution and attitudes. Glad you are here.