I agree entirely.
Self-votes are important in the way steem is designed right now. There is a reason that upvoting your post is the default for top-level posts.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree entirely.
Self-votes are important in the way steem is designed right now. There is a reason that upvoting your post is the default for top-level posts.
Interesting. I see it two ways now. You have a good point about self voting. But someone else suggested that if everyone self voted, that would deplete the Steem power and the system would ultimately collapse.
For myself, I think I'll pass on self voting for now and see how things play out.
duh.
The whole point is that everyone only voting for themselves is worthless.
This is why people are incentivized to vote for others.
Not to mention curation rewards.
If self voting is causing problems where overvalued posts are making too much - boom flagging. The race to Nash equilibrium is futile.
If you self-upvote and nobody downvotes you, you get the full curation rewards from the post times 4.
Excluding downvotes from the equation, most people see themselves as incentivized to self upvote.
It is absolutely incentivized.
This does not mean equilibrium is where everyone only votes for themselves.
Agreed.
For sure, glad I'm not the only one who thinks like I do.
ill follow a similar thinker
Thanks! I followed you aswell!
What is that reason? It seems to be a legacy from the beginning of the platform.
Legacy or not, the feature I would mention is curation rewards.
If all vests are going to be treated equal, I want (and should to some equilibrium extent) to put "my money where my mouth is" so to speak.
This all comes down to principle. If I can not upvote my own posts with my own vests then the very definition of steem changes.
Steem payouts are and have been since the white paper a consensus system. You should absolutely be allowed (by the blockchain level rules) to upvote your own posts. But others need to be allowed to counter your votes, to facilitate the end result of payouts by stakeholder consensus.
Witnesses must allow you to have your say, but other stakeholders don't have to allow you to have your way.
oh yeah. that is the only logical solution to this whole self vote thing.
if you think someone self voted more than the post is worth - flag.
otherwise who cares. you should only be judging posts by their payouts anyways.
The differences between posting and commenting would seem to suggest far different parameters of judging value- who would ever bother with flagging a comment for anything except blatant abuse?
I would flag a comment that was making more than I feel it is worth.