Disclaimer: this account is an alt-account for my main account @sigmajin (added 1-19-17 0848 pst)
Recently, there has been a good deal of controversy about user @ozchartart. The narrative that we have all heard is that OZ is just an innocent victim, caught in between the allegedly dishonest whales upvoting him and allegedly intolerant whales downvoting him.
This narrative is not entirely accurate. In this post, i intend to explain the real relationship that OZ has with those voting for him. I take no position on whether this relationship is necessarily unethical or harmful to the platform. However, i think honesty and transparency is important. The notion that ozchart is some random poster who got lucky (or through skill) attracted the attention of important patrons, and is now being punished for his success is simply not supported by facts.
@ozchartart also has a second account called @ozmaster. This account is actually older it was mined on april 7. You can see the first POW it found here. https://steemd.com/tx/09867b2f6b6823dda274ba5abc60742b972a4b5f
@ozmaster didn't do much besides mine until april 30th, on april 30th he started voting.
Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @b0y2k/she-is-called-the-worlds-most-flexible-woma… May 21 '16
5c1d8287Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @steemservices/announcing-steemitweeter-automatica… May 19 '16
765c919dOzmaster ozmaster upvote @team/world-chooses-steem May 14 '16
0cd413a3Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @riverhead/tlca-cruise-moab-2016 May 14 '16
9cf51dd0Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @clayop/lets-request-steem-to-poloniex May 14 '16
28e239d7Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @au1nethyb1/reducing-friction-for-critical-mass-ad… May 14 '16
0fbc73c1Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @blocktrades/-blocktrades-adds-support-for-directl… May 14 '16
f8566555Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @donaldtrump/lets-talk-politics May 14 '16
609f98ecOzmaster ozmaster upvote @nextgencrypto/steem-price-speculation May 14 '16
f25b90c8Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @nextgencrypto/request-for-proposal-steem-wordpres… May 14 '16
cd20d2eeOzmaster ozmaster upvote @kushed/steem-accounts-auction May 4 '16
1f668af6Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @danknugs/xj-13--hybrid May 3 '16
26d618c8Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @golovachlena/when-why-and-how-you-start-smoke-mar… May 3 '16
101c0637Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @danknugs/show-off-your-best-buds May 3 '16
a87549e9Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @danknugs/show-off-your-best-glass May 3 '16
a7d33d97Ozmaster ozmaster upvote @danknugs/cadillac-purple--indica Apr 30 '16
ab5cc8bfOzmaster ozmaster upvote @danknugs/category-for-cannabis-connoisseurs- Apr 30 '16
Of these 17 votes, 6 were for posts by people that appear to be completely independent of @berniesanders: @team, @riverhead, @clayop, @blocktrades, @au1nethyb1, and @golovachlena
The remaining 12 votes were for authors who either are known to be accounts belonging to @berniesanders (like @nextgencrypto [edited to remove @kushed]) or who appear to have been mined by @berniesanders
FOr example @danukings -- found his first POW on april 14th, and immediately transfered the proceeds to @nextgencrypto
@boy2k was mined on april 17th he was vested 45 steem by @justinbeiber (which was mined on april 13th, and transfered the proceeds to @nextgencrypto the very same day)
@ozmasters very first post was a bitcoin chart. He posted it on may 22 at 00:14:57. Within one minute, he had 3 upvotes, all of which were from mined accounts that transfered their mined steem to @nextgencrypto the day that they were mined.
@ozchartart was created on july 22 https://steemd.com/tx/22104b2171bc51849ea500cc9aff4a666f2c8d8d this account was not mined, but created by @aizensou using the "create account" function.
Now, you have to ask -- why would a user who already had a mining account ask someone else to use the create account function to make an additional account for him?
Days after the account was created, and before even making his first post, he set his voting proxy to @aizensou.
So who is @aizensou?
The account @aizensou was mined on april 16th. The very same day, it vested some of its mining proceeds and transfered the rest to @nextgencrypto.
@ozchartart has two accounts -- one of which was mined and voted for by 3 accounts (@kelly @steemservices and @steemservices1) mined by @nextgencrypto in less than a minute after making its very first post. The other was created by an account clearly mined by @nextgencrypto
I believe that it is 100% NGC's rightto upvote anything he wants, including posts he makes himself. However, others also have the right to downvote those posts. In fact, this is one of the very reasons the downvote exists. The evidence that these two accounts are, in fact, controlled by the same person is, while not absolutely dispostive, is compelling. And any debate about the justification for flagging these accounts ought t o take it into account.
I have flagged this post as this is a witch-hunt that has no factual basis, only misguided speculation. The following is my explanation for why.
The members you call into question are real and different people, and arguing that "account creation" gives some sort of link to identity is a misnomer: account creation can be used to make an account for a friend without knowing the private key associated with the new account. This was especially useful before steemit had a registration process or faucet for new accounts. Therefor, the only fact you have is that these members communicated with each other. On a social network.
Secondly, there is no express rule about having multiple accounts. Clayop below questions the identity of @aizensou and accounts they are connected to, but this is not a reason to witch-hunt them. There are many valid reasons why accounts would share memo keys (for example, knowing the person in real life). In fact, I could pollute the data by using the same memo key and transferring dust, causing our accounts to also be linked. But to further put questions to rest, @steemcleaners has verified these users personally.
I encourage you to read our guide on Identity, here, and give up the attempts at witch-hunting members of our community.
Not even a friend. I've created accounts for all sorts of random people who had trouble with the Steemit account registration system, didn't want to use it, or when it was broken or offline. Some of these were paid; most were free. I have no idea who most of them are.
thats a gross misinterpretation of what i said.
A point which i made in reply to him
to my mind, your verification proves nothing. You have a conflict of interest. A behind closed doors verifiation by an organization that is the beneficiary of donations and support from the individual being verified (or from the individual being distinguished form the individual being identified) is not meaningful evidence, IMO.
I don't really care about your guide to identity verification. because this post has nothing to do with that. This post is about exposing facts about how the reward pool is allocated and about the links a controversial user has with his largest supporter, not verifying someones identity.
What youre attempting to do is supress facts and information that people can use to make an informed decision, not a witch hunt.
There is no relevant information. Digging into people's personal affairs, whether on a blockchain or otherwise, may well involve facts, but that doesn't make it any less invasive and inappropriate, especially when no strong or ultimately meaningful conclusions at all are ever reached, only speculation and suggested inferences.
What @steemcleaners is trying to do (and doing) is discouraging arbitrary invasive identity "investigations" which are divisive and create a hostile environment, while recognizing and encouraging the legitimate cases where identity and similar factors matter and are being used to mislead.
So whats going to happen when/if there's a marketplace. Just a revolving door for scammers?
I would imagine it will look a lot like other online marketplaces where people will provide information to establish their trustworthiness (sometimes verifiable, sometimes not), escrow will be used (apparently already exists on the blockchain, though I'm not sure anyone has ever used it), traders are evaluated by those who trade with them for reputation purposes, etc. And ultimately some people will still get scammed, but that is hardly equivalent to a revolving door.
BTW, I don't see anything about a marketplace on the 2017 roadmap so we probably wont be seeing that on steemit.com in 2017 and quite possibly not 2018 either. For now it seems the focus of the steemit.com site is to be mostly for social conversation and fun, not commerce.
one more thing -- this is absolutely false. With the exception of mistaking kushd for an acknowledged nextgen account, i provide nothing but facts.
Your beef seems to be that you don't like how others are going to interpret those facts.
I'm very disappointed to this. We have seen million times that nextgencrypto is evil bully who is very often attacking other users with derogatory language and causing unnecessary drama. He is the kind of person you should be downvoting, not those who want to research what he is doing on the blockchain.
There is nothing bad in a witch-hunt if there actually is a witch who is actively causing harm to the community.
wow i am mindblown by this information. my whole life is a lie *insert sarcastic voice
you didn't change anyone's life with this witch hunting style post.
hey ! please don't check out my wallet. you might find some strange facts there...
I checked. I am dead. HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
MUHHHAAAAHHHAAA
lol i am not going to
DON'T!!1
What I want is for some of the food you eat to be delivered to my house in Oshawa @knozaki2015
lol
;) haha yeah will try to bring you some in the future!
posting to confirm
jk
Would be interesting to get some clarification from the involved party’s
If not then they will start witch-hunting me like they did in the past with a few people and drove them out of steemit ?
Wow. It continues and yes, I am part of
#MinnowLife
Team Hug time! Good night everyone, best wishes!!!!
What a mystery! I cannot wait for the film starring Tom Hanks 😊
I look forward to part 2.
... and who is @shapeshift? Can I have my STEEM back please? Just by chance that you happen to be passing by this post. And also, why not let the real Shapeshift have the account, whist you're at it. A good-will gesture, if nothing else.
it looks like the account is inactive and has been for some time. theres 600 that people just accidentally sent it sitting in its wallet.
The account was opened in April, so I'm guessing that that means early-miner and therefore current bigfish. I commented here because I thought they might be passing by. One of the accounts opened at the same time is @facebook, which is just weird. Don't they get touchy about people using their name?
yeah, but on a blockchain there's not a ton they can do about it... it does look like one of the early miners, but i can't see any connected accounts that are still active...
That notion is a complete straw man as far as I can tell. One of the replies to Dan's post specifically replied to one of Dan's comments about @ozchartart getting votes from his friends (and pointed out that on a social network this is to be expected). I likewise commented (though I have no personal direct knowledge of any of this) that I expected some of his votes likely came from people who were already followers of his charts and trading analysis (not much different from celebrities who might join Steemit and receive votes from fans).
I don't think anyone claimed that @ozchartart is "some random poster" nor do I expect that high earners will in general be "some random poster". People who succeed in a system based on voting will often if not usually have some in-built source of voting support. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.
to me this answer you gave to @kevinwong (about what kind of content will attract a userbase and is therefore desirable) seems to suggest otherwise.
Also, wasn't that a good part of your problem with krnel trivium posts -- guaranteed votes from his whale friends put him at the top of the payout list every day?
My voting generally reflects that and I never voted for @ozchartart until Papa Dan came down from the mountain to tell the rest of the stakeholders we are doing it wrong. I consider that more harmful than just about anything else that can ever happen, including @ozchartart making some money instead of other posters (at ultimately the identical net cost to stakeholders)
It nevertheless doesn't change the fact that your suggestion of the notion of @ozchartart being a random poster who got lucky is a straw man. I don't believe anyone has suggested it.
The closest might be my suggestion that he is good at networking and got votes that way (itself pure speculation), which is still not being a random poster who got lucky.
In part, and as I said my voting generally reflects it, but also the small to nonexistent target market for the content itself as I said at the time. I've explicitly contrasted that with @ozchartart in fact. Whatever I think of or about @ozchartart's content (generally little in either case), I recognize that trading and charting is something that is proven to potentially attract an audience and a community of significant size. I don't know if @ozchartart is the one to do that, but his topic is at least viable.
Congratulations @morir! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about this award, click here
Congratulations @morir! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
Congratulations @morir! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Just like I have the right to downvote this one and any other bullshit witch hunts.
of course. but the downvote says a lot about who @ozchartart really is and the justification behind downvoting him
Yep, he's a friend. Good job Sherlock, you solved the case!!
incidentally, it seems to me that you wish to have your cake and eat it too. On one hand, if someone criticizes the quality of the work of one of your 'friends', you flag them because they must have ulterior motives.
OTOH, if someone questions the motives behind your own vote, you attack them as well.
WHat it really seems like is that you don't want any standards at all. Which i suppose is a reaosnable position.
Aaah, nice shill account @sigmajin!!!
I specifically stated in the comments to this post that this was an alt account for my main account @sigmajin. link to comment .. so I guess this account is more of a prop player than a shill. I had originally intended to mention it in the post, but i inadvertently cut it out on an edit and forgot to put it back in. (though now that you mention it ill do it now)
I used an alt account because i thought it was very likely this post would be flagged into oblivion (surprise surprise, i was right) and because i felt it was at least possible that my main account might not get nuked as well (though, before you start making cryptic threats i don't really care that much)
I never claimed to be attempting to "solve a case", just to be presenting information relevant to people voting on this user. Information which, btw, both you and he misrepresented in his and dans thread about downvoting.
Him being a friend is one possible interpretation of that information. Him being an alt-account is another. There is nothing to "solve" only information that apparently many feel is relevant to the question -- information you wish to hide.
It is, of course, your right to hide this information (to the extent that your SP allows you to). But the fact that you wish to do so is, well, even more information.
From OP:
@kushed belongs to @berniesanders? This is news to me, and it would be particularly interesting to me if you could prove it.
I suspect you overstate the strength of your claims.
EDIT:
Okay I misundertood. Nevertheless, it still appears to me you making overly-strong factual claims in your original post. That is not a good sign for witch-hunt post. It is a questionable game to play to begin with but if you are going to play you damn well better check and recheck your facts. If it were not already flagged to oblivion I would like have flagged it.
I was talking about the comment @berniesanders flagged.
I said
I thought that was an acknowledged, out in the open fact. like @nextgencrypto belonged to @berniesanders (or the other way around). I assumed it based on comments made in chat and in posts, but perhaps i misinterpreted.
He's not an alt account. If you wish to continue spreading these lies I will continue to downvote your comments.
Of course, that is your right.
However there were no lies in my comment. Everything i said was absolutely provably true. Including the fact that him being an alt account was a possible interpretation of the information available.
Even if we take it as a given that your statement about him not being one is an absolute gosepl fact, it does not change the fact that some people will interpret the available information incorrectly.