You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Two proposed HF policy change for countering reward based abuses.

in #steem7 years ago (edited)

I don't think any form of self-voting should be entertained or rewarded in any way, even to boost rankings. Just having a higher SP value than other users does not mean your content is better, and should get higher rankings. It should be up to your followers to upvote you to where they think you belong. We should all be on an even playing field. Sure those that have been here longer, and contributed more should get higher rankings, but that should be evident by the upvotes of their numerous and loyal followers, and not a self-righteous upvote.

My idea is to reduce the maximum voting weight of self votes to 5%, with a higher reduction in voting power, with weight reducing, and VP reducing by and increasing amount with every self vote. I explain it a little better here if you're interested.

https://steemit.com/steem/@bmj/how-can-we-fix-the-greedy-self-upvoting-buggers-drain-their-power

I'm not a fan of the flagging idea, except as a last resort. Increasing the power of the flag also gives the flag-bullies greater power to kill off anyone who disagrees with them. It's a very touchy area to mess with in my opinion, and needs a lot of thought before any changes are made which could make things worse.

Sort:  

It might have been a PITA for you to register an account on Steem but it's actually as easy if not easier to create thousands of account on steem than it is on facebook & al..

How does

We should all be on an even playing field

works for you now ?

I'm not sure you've understood the context in which that sentence exists. Why should the post of someone with higher SP than another get a higher ranking from a self upvote, when it may not any better? The even playing field here is that we all have the same chance to get up the "hot" list as anyone else, regardless of their SP balance. We get ranked by our peers, and not by our own power.

The creation of hundreds and thousands of accounts by one person is whole other problem for the developers to address. We're talking purely self voting and flagging here (although those accounts could be used for the same).

ehh why limit? vests should be vests

Simply put, self voting is an abuse of power (vests), self-serving and makes no valid contribution to the betterment of Steemit.

But who are you to tell me what is an abuse or not with my vests? Either vests are vests and everyone stops complaining or we set up​ regulations​ on how vests can be sent. There is no middle ground here.

Maybe you don't think self-voting has a contribution​ but the mechanics disagree. Curation rewards?

We should all just upvote ourselves because the mechanics allow it? I'll get my $0.03, and you'll get your $2.50, and the whales will get their $100 for each 100% vote we give ourselves, up to 10 times per day? That's not what the voting system is intended for. The rich get richer, and the poor die trying....

As far as curation rewards go. Upvote your own comment, and if nobody else upvotes, you get the author reward, plus all the curation reward, for adding what others have perceived as of no value, hence no additional votes. That, right there, is self-serving abuse of power.

Read https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf Page 16. Self voting is seen as defecting from the original goal of the voting system.

So back to your question:
Who am I to tell you what is an abuse or not with your vest?

I am nobody, an insignificant blip on the Steemit Blochchain, but I am someone who has read the whitepaper, and is still trying to understand much of it, but who understands that while some things are permissible by their "mechanics," it is not always beneficial for them to be exploited outside of their original design.

That is why I am in favor of implementing diminishing returns on self upvotes, and draining voting power of those who do. Hopefully it will cause a culture change to reward good work over greed. everyone will benefit from this, except the defectors.

That is capitalism. In Pirates of the Caribbean 3, the pirate lords all had one vote and they all upvoted their own STEEMIT content or they all wanted to be the pirate lord but then Jack Sparrow voted for Swan. She became the pirate lord because she had 2 votes, one from Swan and one from Sparrow.

.

I love capitalism. I want the rich to get more rich. But the poor can go from zero to hero too. Some will die trying. We got to try or we can try communism or something.