For those who have read my posts, I love analysing Steemit data and trying to help community and myself understand Steemit better by providing meaningful insights through analysis.
While I very much welcome the higher relative voting of smaller accounts following Hard Fork 19, I think the fact that someone can pay themselves potentially $100s for their own comments and posts is just crazy and I would consider that portion of the reward fund completely innefficient.
In a few days time I will do a detailed analysis showing 1) the % of rewards made up of self voting both before and after Hard Fork 19 and 2) the most prolific self voters.
I feel this will highlight the issue for the Steemit community.
I love Steemt and want it to succeed but huge self votes is not the way.
Thank you for reading
The self voting is bad for steem, but has major incentives for individual steemians, thats why:
It's a "tragedy of the commons". The situation can not be eased by appealing to the conscience of people - they act in their personal interests. It is necessary to change the system so that there is a common cause where most profitable.
Why is this post self-voted by you..? Lol
Fair point 😀, however, I'd happily sacrifice my self voti privilages if meant someone who can pay them self $100s had to make the same sacrifice.
I know I was just kidding xD
I self vote when i can't find good content or my power is near 100% and i don't have time to search for it. No sense wasting the opportunity.
That being said, if i was making a killing on here I would have more time to find content and wouldn't need to upvote my own things.
I'm always for less regulation, unless it's absolutely vital. I'd say let's just call out anyone who does it all the time... The community has a lot of power here.
I think peer pressure can do great things when all activity here is public. Besides, regulate it and they'll just make multiple accounts and vote between them.
Upvoted post to help support your research ;)
Systems always come with their flaws no doubt and this is a loop hole that needs serious looking into, maybe it would be better if steemit can put measures like limits on self votes and cut down to a perticular % depending on ones steem power, but lets be honest self voting has helped alot of people get paid and changed their lives for the better, it isnt such a bad thing when you look at it from that perspective and as such it has its positive side, for an individual to have self votes getting into $100s he did alot of hard work and made alot of sacrifices, it didnt just fall in his laps, not withstanding i agree with you at certain levels and i believe its better for regulations to be made. Great post by the way @bitgeek
I think self-voting shouldn't be allowed.
Self voting is a way to increase visibility of your post or comment, not just a way to snag a portion of the reward fund, s it does have its uses!
I agree, it does help. I do it but not usually at 100% because I see a lot of content I like that I want to reward.
I agree, but most of us minnows don't have the luxury of the slider, so are unable to vary the weight of our votes!
Good point.
Hopefully I will get there soon. I have also been told that the approx. 500 SP limit is being reduced to approx. 125 SP, so that will help.
Yes but there should be a cap to its weight. Being able to give yourself $100 for nothing is just wrong. There will always be people who will abuse this.
I agree but Steemit equates money with visibility (more popular posts are those earning the most) so in order to raise the profile of your own post, you need to increase its value. If there was a way of doing so without basically paying yourself, perhaps more would use it.
Being rewarded for voting yourselve is definitely confusing. Do you maybe know any youtuber explaining the voting-system and steempower? For a beginner, it is not so easy.. :/
I agree 100% with your post, however for newbies like me, sometimes self-voting is the only way I can get a couple of cents for my posts and comments. But If I was a whale and getting $100 per post just for commenting, it would definitely be bad for the economy.
Follow https://steemit.com/@sethlinson
Stop freaking out. The only pool drained when a person upvotes themselves or anyone else is their own little pool. They're not taking from anyone else's little or big pool.
Thanks bro
Your tips would be really helpful for a newbie like me.
People say its bad to vote on your own content and some say its good! Nobody knows!
But if its bad why would Steam give the option to do it?
You can self vote in moderation and in the case of whales, give yourself 10% or something. I think self voting should exist but should be capped.
Yes I am still new to this platform and still working it all out! Only just realised you had to vote on good content early on! And me I have been voting on content when its all ready rocketed in to the trending tab! But any help is gladly appreciated!
Look forward to your article. However to note, even before the hardfork people could vote up there account a hundred dollars. Whales maybe even thousands.. I just try to think of it as them staking their coins, but I get what your saying.. like when I had 10000 ark I could make 4 or 5 ark a day just for having it..
Interesting, but I think this is the whole point of decentralization - one of the moments
Thanks man.
If I had the steem power I would.. but what irks me the most is when they comment upvote themselves and don't even give you an upvotr
Right? Who does that?!
Should be interesting!
I'm not objective to being able to up vote your own stuff but feel you should be up-voting others content as well. If you just up voted all of your own stuff I would imagine the community would catch on to that pretty quickly and almost shun you
Just like wellfair people abuse it by just not looking for jobs and taking the money for themselves. On the other hand if we don't support the little guys then steemit will not grow as much. The reason facebook is so powerful is because its numbers, steemit needs the same. We just need to have faith that the little guys will continue to try to grow the community and it is our jobs as ones who have a bit more influence to support them( steem power + educating them how to grow community) so then later on they can support us. That is a community.
Anybody that thinks self upvoting is bad doesn't understand one simple fact.
Your votes represent your very own shares that you personally have power over because you personally have done what it takes to have STEEM Power.
If you want to hold some of your shares back for yourself, you should do it. It's not like we ever come close to running out of shares. On top that upvoting increases the payout to the curators, also.
And the cherry at the top is this: Do we really want to get into telling people what they can and cannot do with their very own shares?
It's already damnable enough that I have to always vote through eSteem to control the % of upvote because Steemit.com thinks newbies can't contol a sliding scale.
Before you jump on this bandwagon, know that you're hell bent on giving up control over your own property.
Just say'n.
I'm totally CALLING YOUR HAND.
Your voting allotment is based on your investment in / acquisition of STEEM Power. You are granted a share of the vote based on total allowed votes for the day. Your alloted votes for the day is only a share or potion of the total.
IT IS YOUR SHARE TO DO WITH AS YOU PLEASE. Including upvoting a portion of your share to your own work.
MoreOver a 100% upvote is not 100% of your voting share. A 100% upvote only gives about 2% of your allotted votes. (last formula I saw.) Every time you vote a portion of your vote, you are voting a portion of your share aka portion of the total of the available votes.
THE ONLY WAY someone can vote ALL STEEM Power into their own pocket is under the following conditions.
They must be the ONLY holder of STEEM Power in the whole Steemit Universe.
They must upvote themselves @100% through the rest of eternity. Theoretically they never run out of STEEM Power because of the eternal nature of mathematics. But also because their actions continue to create STEEM thereby renewing the number of available shares.
So. Again. Show me the formula in the code that allows @dan to bypass this formula that the rest of us follow.
The problem is that votes then become mere financial tricks, not promoters of good content.
Those with the most Steem didn't get it by being upvoted. However, they profit not only from capital gains on the appreciation of Steem as Steemit grows (by rewarding good content), but from drawing down the rewards pool when self voting.
This is double dipping, it's unnecessary, as traditional stock investing shows by being nominally profitable, and it directly decreases the ability of ordinary people to curate content for the reasons the rewards pool is stated to be for. The ability to suck more from the rewards pool because one has a larger stake in Steem is counterproductive to Steemit.
Capital gains is a thing. It is nominal.
@dan has a grip of SP. He can dominate the rewards distribution. He doesn't because reasons.
Prior to HF19 99% of author rewards inured to 1% of accounts. I don't have a more recent chart, but wanna see it. I'd like to know what impact the fork has had on curing the symptom of the problem of inequitous distribution of the commons.
I'm sorry. But basically. This is fear mongering. If someone has planted this fear in your head, go find someone else that actually knows what they are talking about.
Stop talking. Start asking better questions.
And this is in no ways or means a normal stock market. Don't go there.
Go out visiting the Steemit universe, you'd have some really good ideas how people are being affected. Let go of the graphs. Go visit the people. It will do you a world of good.
Ok. First, you have said to 'let go of the graphs', which means to ignore the actual data. Second, you told me to stop talking. Third, you told me to not make arguments that compare traditional capital gains based markets to Steem. Fourth, you implied I am a shut in without friends. Fifth, you accused me of 'fear mongering', without any basis that I can see.
I'm just curious: do you have any substantive arguments, or is ad hominem the extent of your ability to respond?
First off, you said you are displaying stale data. You called it irrelevant.
Yes, you need to go ask better questions of someone who has a lot more information. Until then, yes please stop. You're missing vital info. You're making people unnecessarily afraid.
Yes, I'm telling you not to compare Steemit to traditional capital gains markets.
If you are a shut in without friends in Steemit, you can fix that by wandering around in the Steemit Universe and reading posts by real people that will tell you, much better than graphs, how Steemit is affecting their lives.
You can do the above even if you are not a shut in without Steemit friends.
If you are not a shut in, then you could actually find some of the Steemit meetups that are currently springing up.
The very basis that you cannot see is the reason I'm telling you to go find someone who is a witness or much older than a minnow and involved in the workings of the Steemit structure who can tell you what you do not see.
So I would say, all in all, you're fairly astute in your summary and I personally would expect someone as astute as yourself to go get better advice, input, and knowledge.
I'm pretty sure we're on the same page now. I do look forward to hearing whom you've found to learn from and the differences between Steemit and a typical capital gains market.
Have fun.
I appreciate where your coming from but have to disiagree. They aren't shares, that's how your interpreting them. For Steemit to grow, upvotes should be used for the purposes of rewarding good content. My issue is the scale of some of the upvotes.
If @dan were to utilise his upvote "privileges" there would be nothing left.
Based on which formula located where in the code?
This sounds like a great analysis! Looking forward to your results !
Is there an explanation why everybody is automatically up voting his own post ? :)
I think that self-voting for posts is OK as there is significant work and invested into these and they bring value to the community. For self-voting comments the default should be set to 25% or 50% because otherwise people could indeed blow up all their power on their own posts and comments. The point is that you shouldn't vote only for your own stuff.
Steemit as a platform is very different from traditional blogs. The way the system is setup is to encourage any kind of transaction on steem.
I will request you to kindly give this post a read (not mine). The more you grow your SP, the more you let the others grow!
This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jun 25. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $81.45 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jun 25 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
This is information I will be happy to see. I haven't bothered to retract votes that somehow get made on my posts, but I never vote my comments.
Vote buying, self voting, and bots/curation trails, all suck from the common reward pool without contributing to the actual curation of content worthy of votes.
These are problems that devalue the common rewards pool, and this devalues Steemit itself. I'd like to hear proposals that might resolve this issue, before all the trees in England are cut down. Ooops, too late (an example of the rape of the commons that did not get resolved before the commons were devoid of value).
I see that HF19 did reduce inequity some, and this is good, but it merely adjusted the symptoms, and did not address the cause of inequitous concentration of wealth at the expense of the commons.
I have suggested that the wealth of the account holder be not considered for curation, or rewards distribution, in any way. This would make vote buying go away. It would also make all the timing of votes, curation for the sake of rewards alone, etc.. go away.
I have yet to read, despite promises from those I have discussed it with, of any good reason for perpetuating inequitable distribution of wealth from the common rewards pool, or for downvotes.
Other than luring investors to initially fund Steemit, that is, by creating a mechanism from which they can profit. However, traditional investing in stock, for instance, doesn't create payroll taxes inuring to investors, or other mechanisms comparable to extracting funds from the rewards pool, but offered capital gains from the success of the company whose stock was purchased.
This seems to me to be proven to be nominal to attract investment, and would allow content creators and curators to be motivated by the content in their work, rather than tricks that game the system for maximal financial rewards.
That, in turn, would seem to best potentiate Steemit to grow and prosper, which would increase the price of Steem, and reward investors.
Maintaining tools for inequitably extracting wealth from the commons seems to promote the opposite, and I am agin' it.
Thanks for you post!
The analysis is very useful to me and to Streemean around the world, and I am happy to follow you, it's a great analysis.
I'm so overwhelmed by all this new information. I really want to take steemit and make the most out of it. Do you have any suggestions of videos that can teach me how to do this??