The thing is, that they still haven't fixed this self-voting issue after a goddamn year, so then the only thing remaining is try to solve it together as users.
I'm with you on that. But solving together is not the same as putting people with a lot of Steem power on your list and imply that they are all abusing the system. That isn't working together...that is creating a divide.
I believe in the platform so I bought $20k of Steem instead of spending that on other alt coins. I shouldn't get penalized for having faith in the system. If I had $500 of Steem power instead, I would never end up on your list. Why are you penalizing someone for believing in the system vs someone who cashes out all their earnings?
I also don't believe that I gave myself 50% of all the upvotes I did. Will run the data myself this weekend to find the disconnect.
The lists show highest amounts of SBD going to self-votes and highest % of self-voters. Those are the groups with the most impact. The disclaimer also clearly states that not all of the cases are considered problematic.
How can you believe in the system when you just agreed that it's voting incentives are problematic?
I believed in the system when I bought the Steem. Starting to have second thoughts and may power down. Why buy Steem power when it just means I'll show up on your list.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself over...but your list should not be about SBD value...it should be a percentage of the Steem power in your account. Just the fact that most of your list consists of people with a lot of Steem should show you that. Transisto is on there? That guy is as anti self vote as it gets, but he has so much steem. If your list was based on proportion to Steem power, you would see the real abusers.
All your list is doing is making people like me, who actually want the platform to work, who doesn't abuse the system, who is a content creator, to think about powering down or creating multiple accounts or creating a bot or selling my power via delegation.
If you want the platform to work you should start by stopping self-voting altogether :)
Have you read all 4 posts? There's 100's of users all with different stats. I'm personally mainly concerned with high relative self-vote rewards (like yourself). 59% of the rewards you allocate going to yourself, could be considered abuse. When you're also a content creator it's a slightly different story though.
Ideally everyone just stops self-voting altogether and lets the free market decide what everything is worth. But until everyone in the world has a universal basic income, i guess we'll all be greedy from time to time (me included).
You self-voted 282 times for ~$0.57 SBD on average. It adds up mate.
In general i don't think there should be any reason to upvote your comments more than a few % of the time. If you're a content creator it's technically OK to upvote yourself, but what if we just all stopped doing it? What would the harm in that?
None at all, would be great. Unfortunately, the system isn't set up like that. If you can't stop the bots who do majority of the harm, then leave the humans alone.
Also, how much did I upvote others? What percentage is my self upvoted SBD compared to my Steem power?
You can do the calculations yourself. You know your own STEEM + SP + SBD and my lists show your SBD voted total and on self in approximately 1 month. Since i'm a nice guy, i looked it up for you and it's $270.46 SBD total voted and $160.51 SBD on yourself excluding curation rewards. The STEEM + SP + SBD value you had approximately 40 days ago is something you can better estimate.
Regardless, voting 60% of the maximum potential on yourself is high either way. Many bots self-vote wayyyy less.
P.S.: keep in mind that there are many factors like the STEEM price in Dollars and voting activity which need to be incorporated into the calculations.
You are missing the point. 60% is not maximum potential. If I had setup a bot, I could have earned thousands. If I had sold my votes, I could have earned thousands. If I had sold my delegation power, I could have earned a little over a thousand.
Ah you're right, it's maximum potential of the votes you did, not of the full potential indeed. If you used your 20% voting power every day and you still had assigned 60% of all voting power to yourself, then we would be talking about maximum potential indeed.
But the relative amount someone rewarded to his or herself and to others is what's important, regardless if they used all their voting power or not.
Also, self-votes are actively being flagged, regardless if they were made by humans or bots. Since it's allowed to self-vote, it's also allowed to flag them :)
It's pretty funny to see what happens in a free market.
It's not a solution, but measuring and giving props to people who give out most of their upvote dollars to others is better than a shame list. That's good positive reinforcement.
Second, the problem is so much bigger than humans upvoting their comments. How much more money are the bots creators getting from selling votes, or people selling delegation power to minnows who will self upvote, or multiple account abuse, etc? Those are much bigger problems.
I don't know what the solution is....besides changing the underlying rules in the next hardfork.
The thing is, that they still haven't fixed this self-voting issue after a goddamn year, so then the only thing remaining is try to solve it together as users.
I'm with you on that. But solving together is not the same as putting people with a lot of Steem power on your list and imply that they are all abusing the system. That isn't working together...that is creating a divide.
I believe in the platform so I bought $20k of Steem instead of spending that on other alt coins. I shouldn't get penalized for having faith in the system. If I had $500 of Steem power instead, I would never end up on your list. Why are you penalizing someone for believing in the system vs someone who cashes out all their earnings?
I also don't believe that I gave myself 50% of all the upvotes I did. Will run the data myself this weekend to find the disconnect.
The lists show highest amounts of SBD going to self-votes and highest % of self-voters. Those are the groups with the most impact. The disclaimer also clearly states that not all of the cases are considered problematic.
How can you believe in the system when you just agreed that it's voting incentives are problematic?
I believed in the system when I bought the Steem. Starting to have second thoughts and may power down. Why buy Steem power when it just means I'll show up on your list.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself over...but your list should not be about SBD value...it should be a percentage of the Steem power in your account. Just the fact that most of your list consists of people with a lot of Steem should show you that. Transisto is on there? That guy is as anti self vote as it gets, but he has so much steem. If your list was based on proportion to Steem power, you would see the real abusers.
All your list is doing is making people like me, who actually want the platform to work, who doesn't abuse the system, who is a content creator, to think about powering down or creating multiple accounts or creating a bot or selling my power via delegation.
If you want the platform to work you should start by stopping self-voting altogether :)
Have you read all 4 posts? There's 100's of users all with different stats. I'm personally mainly concerned with high relative self-vote rewards (like yourself). 59% of the rewards you allocate going to yourself, could be considered abuse. When you're also a content creator it's a slightly different story though.
Ideally everyone just stops self-voting altogether and lets the free market decide what everything is worth. But until everyone in the world has a universal basic income, i guess we'll all be greedy from time to time (me included).
You self-voted 282 times for ~$0.57 SBD on average. It adds up mate.
In general i don't think there should be any reason to upvote your comments more than a few % of the time. If you're a content creator it's technically OK to upvote yourself, but what if we just all stopped doing it? What would the harm in that?
None at all, would be great. Unfortunately, the system isn't set up like that. If you can't stop the bots who do majority of the harm, then leave the humans alone.
Also, how much did I upvote others? What percentage is my self upvoted SBD compared to my Steem power?
You can do the calculations yourself. You know your own STEEM + SP + SBD and my lists show your SBD voted total and on self in approximately 1 month. Since i'm a nice guy, i looked it up for you and it's $270.46 SBD total voted and $160.51 SBD on yourself excluding curation rewards. The STEEM + SP + SBD value you had approximately 40 days ago is something you can better estimate.
Regardless, voting 60% of the maximum potential on yourself is high either way. Many bots self-vote wayyyy less.
P.S.: keep in mind that there are many factors like the STEEM price in Dollars and voting activity which need to be incorporated into the calculations.
You are missing the point. 60% is not maximum potential. If I had setup a bot, I could have earned thousands. If I had sold my votes, I could have earned thousands. If I had sold my delegation power, I could have earned a little over a thousand.
Ah you're right, it's maximum potential of the votes you did, not of the full potential indeed. If you used your 20% voting power every day and you still had assigned 60% of all voting power to yourself, then we would be talking about maximum potential indeed.
But the relative amount someone rewarded to his or herself and to others is what's important, regardless if they used all their voting power or not.
Also, self-votes are actively being flagged, regardless if they were made by humans or bots. Since it's allowed to self-vote, it's also allowed to flag them :)
It's pretty funny to see what happens in a free market.
If you got any other suggestions, i'm all ears :)
We can use all the help in the world. Nobody wants this experiment go to shit.
It's not a solution, but measuring and giving props to people who give out most of their upvote dollars to others is better than a shame list. That's good positive reinforcement.
Second, the problem is so much bigger than humans upvoting their comments. How much more money are the bots creators getting from selling votes, or people selling delegation power to minnows who will self upvote, or multiple account abuse, etc? Those are much bigger problems.
I don't know what the solution is....besides changing the underlying rules in the next hardfork.
There you go, now you get it ;)