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?