Didn't delegating SP to people who doled out the VP to good people net benefit individuals who were in turn acting selflessly and helping others who were also doing good on the blockchain in a direct, targeted fashion, creating tiers of generosity, whereas attacking 1 person returns some steem/sbd to the reward pool but that is just then shared in a blanket way by everyone else, including those who are themselves exploiting the reward pool, which at this point probably represents a majority of the voting activity anyway?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's all a matter of degree. Abuse on a small scale is different from abuse on a large scale. The "probably represents a majority of the voting activity anyway" is not a good argument unless the goal is to watch the platform die. The point is to make improvements and move towards a better shared goal, right?
I guess I am just cynical towards it because most of the damage to his rewards will have been done after the period of peak profitability has already passed. There definitely would not be enough VP to combat all those who self-vote 80%+ and those delegating only to bots, though.
You gave me an interesting idea for a regular report on who is self-voting and bot-voting the most and a call-to-action for those with significant VP to downvote the content (much like the "Operation Clean Trending" post I referenced in my original post).