Your information is incorrect.
You will get a random % vote on your content if you send money to @randowhale. That is correct.
However, what you've provided is screenshots of something different. That is what people earn from delegations and not from votes they pay for.
That being said... @berniesanders is fighting for what he believes is right. And truth to be told, he and many other Steemians are right. No one is worthy of 10 x $200-$400 posts per day.
- That is ridiculous.
I won't argue about this whole reward scenario too much, but just imagine if @freedom would give himself 10 votes per day. For whatever content he provides.
@Haejin's rewards are mostly from @ranchorelaxo, who has a total of 1,304,239.914 Steem Power.
It doesn't matter if this is his own account or if this is a whale trying to support him for his efforts. - And this is not some sort of hate speech or anything like that either.
@freedom on the other hand, has a total of 7,321,715.441 Steem Power.
- What do you think would happen if @freedom started to give himself, or any other author 10 x 100% upvotes per day?
The reward pool would be raped and others would suffer... Why do you think that most whales are spreading their votes across the entire platform? - To give others something for their contributions and to grow Steemit.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with this.
We need people upvoting and earning as much on here as possible. The rewards will be spread out and balanced out naturally as more quality content creators come in from other platforms and there is more competition for rewards.
Shutting down anyone as soon as they start becoming successful, and subjecting them to vicious personal attacks is just unbelievable.
What serious, mass-appeal kind of content creator would ever want to be on a platform where this happens?
Well said! - I wasn't talking about shutting down anyone. It's obviously not good for Steemit to censor specific authors.
We should strive to reward as many authors as possible. That is what will encourage people to join. This is how we will get massadoption in the long run.
Having only a handful of authors though, with earnings of $5,000 per week meanwhile newcomers are struggling for 3 months to earn their first dollar... That is not good for Steemit.
I don't have problems with users rewarding what they believe is high quality content. What I do see as a problem, is that one person earns anything between $200 and $400 on each post, 10 times per day. - And I see that as a problem because most of the rewards are due to one user who never upvotes anyone else.
That being said, just like I stated in the previous comment. What if @freedom, @berniesanders (which people have been talking about lately) and all the other whales started to upvote their own posts or just supported one other author... - What if @ned did the same thing?
Massadoption will never work if people never supports anyone besides themselves. - And serious investors realize that they will make more if they spread their wealth across the entire platform. That's why they're voting with low percentage votes on multiple authors, instead of giving all their votes to one single author.
I don't have accurate numbers but there's probably more than a handful of people on Steemit right now who could give themselves $1000+ per day if they wanted to... - But if they did that... The price of Steem would fall, SBD would fall and Steemit would ultimately die.
That is why #rewardpoolrape is bad for the entire community.
"That is why <insert label the State doesn't like, which is not clearly defined, and the State can therefore assign to anything> is bad for the < patriots of our great nation!> "
Won't you please think of the children?
If you allow vaguely defined "crimes" to justify vigilante justice, you'll get lots of vigilante justice.
Your first point is very important, and a critical flaw in the original post. Good catch. This is what Bernie will come in and rip on when he finds this post.
"No one is worthy of 10 x $200-$400 posts per day."
Citation needed for argument assumed with no evidence or support provided. This isn't communism. The MARKET decides who is worth what.
"What do you think would happen if @freedom started to give himself, or any other author 10 x 100% upvotes per day?"
The platform would be functioning as designed, distributing the reward pool. You use the term rape to politicize and try to assume your position.
This potential has already been reduced by the move from exponential to linear voting.
You're probably right... - But I still believe that one author with $200-$400 per post, on 10 posts per day... Is bad for the platform when most of the rewards comes from one user.
I don't even dare thinking about what would happen if all the whales started to upvote their own posts 10 times per day and ignored the rest of the people.
I guess the old expression:
I don't like what I'm seeing in the community around here anymore than I am guessing you do, but the solution is not an arbitrary cap on what people can earn.
I believe most would agree that Steemit is here to reward merit. We cannot hard-cap out our "Einsteins", or forever be at-or-below median in quality.
Exactly, thank you for this @lexiconical
Exactly what I've been telling all along. I once said it would be OK to put a dynamic cap based on the unique upvoters (At leaset 5 SBD or more per upvoter per week. So @haejin would be at worst capped at 5000SBD per week) and I was fine with splitting larger votes into multiple votes which would force the biggest whales to use more than 10 votes per day.
Still these are what I consider tolerable and not something I fully support.
I think we all need to cultivate more of an abundance mentality here. There are enough rewards to go around, and those who offer the most value will get them.
Nobody is entitled to any of the reward pool. I feel this is the problem here. Sadly in modern culture people are so spoilt that feel they have a right to something for nothing.
I do a little blogging, and I earn very little in upvotes, but I am happy and thankful for what I get. It's not my business to expect to make more at the expense of others who honestly deserve what they have been freely given by helping others so much.
I think all whales should be voting as much as possible, if they're not it means a lot of the reward pool is going unused. The more money is sloshing around the Steem ecosystem, the more big bloggers and content creators will want to come on board to get a piece of the pie. The quality of content competing for upvotes will balance out the distribution of rewards naturally.
It's the same as if Steemit was a country, we must make it a friendly environment for business, and for people who are rich and successful to live here without fear of personal attack. Otherwise they will leave, our country will become like North Korea or Venezuela, and we will starve.
If you were a celebrity, like a movie star, football player, a writer, or whatever, and you saw this behaviour, would you ever sign up to Steemit and face being treated like this?
I get your point. I really do.
I would love to see really famous people joining Steemit. Movie stars and whatever. That would be awesome and I believe that it can happen at some point. However, let's look at it from an average users perspective instead.
Would you stay at Steemit if you never got feedback and support?
I know we have different types of people on Steemit. Users have different "levels". We have minnows, dolphins and whales etc. However, I still believe it would be better for the platform to reward tons of people with something instead of a handful of people with everything.
That's the only thing I see as a problem. That some people are rewarding only 1 or 2 authors and ignore the rest of the Steemians.
I'm sorry but I cannot accept that. Even if you start from zero and you make an effort, post every day, use all your upvotes for curation, write lots of comments and replies, and power everything up, maybe put a bit of money in too, even if it's just a handful of STEEM here and there, you will grow very quickly.
How can anyone possibly say they haven't been given enough opportunity by this platform? What do other websites pay you? Nothing!
This is real life, it's competitive. You have to really work hard to be successful and get the big bucks, and not everyone is going to make it. I think lots of people are just lazy and entitled, and are having a tantrum like little spoilt children, trying to break another kid's toys. I'm sorry, that's how it is.
Yes, this is the crux of your argument, and an important point.
@hitmeasap is saying, that something other than the freest of free markets might help main stream adoption faster which might help us all more in the long run with token price.
Your points that any cent is a bonus, is very true too. It may not lead to main stream adoption though. I am loath to admit it, but main stream might be a bunch of whiners.
Hard work and effort. That's what it takes to succeed on Steemit and in life.
However, people would never stay as active Steemians without support or gratification... They could stay on Facebook and instagram for that.
People join Steemit for the money. For the opportunity they have. They can earn money.
That is why I personally believe, it's better for Steemit as a community to spread the reward. A little bit of rewards to tons of people rather than a huge slice of the pie to just a handful of authors. That's what I believe is for the best.
Thanks for the great discussion!
Thank you too! I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic, jut venting a little I guess. I appreciate the discussion too!
I agree generally with your points, but this point is a misunderstanding about how the ecosystem works.
There are X number of rewards. These are divided up amongst the claims on the reward pool. Claims are processed by Voting Power (based on Steem Power and frequency) of upvotes.
If all whales voted, there would not be more money, your upvotes would just be worth less.
This is the math of how the system was designed.
Thank you for clearing that up, yes I guess you're right. If the whales aren't voting then the voting pool is still the same just spread among more users.
I don't know, it's a hard one to call. I definitely accept your points. I agree on fair and equal distribution, but I also think it's important to reward the superstars. Personally, I'm in this for Steemit to become the next Twitter or Instagram, where it goes without saying that every big celebrity has to have an account.
If that happened then the price would blow up so fast that any amount of Steem rewards would be worth a lot. The pennies that people are getting now would become dollars.
Maybe there should be a sliding scale letting authors decide what proportion of payouts to accept, on a voluntary basis, like there is with upvotes? That way if someone is really successful they can choose to only accept a portion of their rewards. Right now it's all or nothing.
Still, I think we need to learn to celebrate wealth here. You never get rich by hating the rich, or money.
YES!
This is the scenario of long term sustainability. I also think this platform has room for other use cases outside of social media. Steemit is awesome, but I think Utopian might be even more powerful. And I think we haven't even scratched the surface.
But the key crucial point in this is we need to buy up SP. We need to demand more of it. Bring more people on. Expand our stakes. Expand the use-case. Steem will only get better the more we use it.
Imagine a world with $10,000 dollar steem where every steempower gives a 1 dollar upvote or more!
We will only get there if this is a positive community. Attacks and bullying can never be tolerated. That comes first, arguing over money is second. We all need to stand up together and say no to that whenever it happens.
It could easily be us any day, and who will help us then?
I've always been advocating people to buy Steem and Power Up from the beginning. That's taking personal responsibility for the equal distribution of power and rewards here.
Come now. You know it is more nuanced than that with the plague of rampant inorganic voting. Yes, it's the system in place and, yes, and it is broke imho. Do you at least acknowledge there is rampant manipulation and perhaps a bit of cronyism among the larger stakeholders?
For instance, do you not acknowledge that stake is easily able to be leveraged to override effort and quality? I see it ALL THE TIME. I believe Steem is a microcosm of the nature of man. There is a lot of greed and deception as to what is quality content. Curation has gone to the wayside. For instance, have you noticed how dollarvigilante double dips and people just eat it up? I'm glad at least Bernie went after that but I reckon it's only the tip of the shit iceberg.
@hitmeasap, so, there should be a "hardcoded" limit of how much one whale (more than %SP) can give to one author per day.
In this scenario a whale, orca or dolphin can vote as many times and for as many posts of one author as she wants but SP will be a limited amount.
And that should be calculated as a reasonable solution to stop those wars once and for all.
Ok replace the word paid for delegated wherever you see it. Same end.