RE: And You Wonder Why Steems Price Is Tanking
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Don't pay too much attention to Smooth bro... My take is that he's a smart dude, but socially he's not interested in being part of a community per say. He's an investor, he's looking out for his bags, he's not considering anything else besides that.
I for one, Im happy you are still around... Cheers mate.
0
0
0.000
I highly disagree with this, I think smooth is the most consistent person when it comes to how he uses his downvotes. It’s not personal, it’s not abusive and he’s been very clear on what he downvotes - bought votes. He feels they are not healthy for the economy and therefore uses his stake to state so. He also uses his stake to curate too.. as was intended.
I think what’s unhealthy is the butthurt and entitlement that comes from those so used to sucking what they want from the pool - How dare a stakeholder use their stake to redistribute from something they thought was over valued?!? 😱
That’s the whole point of the system - stake weighted up and down votes to distribute inflation to where they feel adds value. Consensus is found at the end of the payout period and funds are transferred.
Stating that someone must be downvoting because they don’t care about the community or being a part of it is just silly. People need to learn how to take a downvote and if the true point of this individuals bought votes was to “promote” something.. he shouldn’t care that he may lose a bit of money, as promotion costs money and as long as it got that attention it was worth it, right? Or is the frustration because it wasn’t about promotion at all, rather making a profit by buying votes?
It’s not like the guy got $30 worth of malicious downvotes like many users are getting.. Hell his post was still on trending.. sounds like promotion wasn’t the goal in the slightest, maybe we need to be honest with ourselves.
(Oh and to clarify, I’m also glad the guy is here and don’t think the post was bad.. but I think it’s quite a lot of irritation for a few small downvotes on a bid botted post).
i kind of came from your angle, worded it poorly. Meaning...
It's not personal, its not against Sean.. it's just him looking out for his investment.
Well then perhaps when you flag there should be a clear reason you type in for the flag. Being here for the last two years I know a few bad actors that just flag because they don't like someone and yes at that point it is a personal attack.
It was meant for promotional reasons you can clearly see that by the post. Of course I care about my investment as well otherwise I wouldn't have bought thousands of dollars worth of steem when it was over $1 each.
It wasn't just this one time its been happening a few times recently and like ANYONE who is human we all have those days when it just hits you the wrong way and you need to vent a little. Steem and some of the big names on here lately have seriously irritated me how they have been running things. I am sure there are much worse posts that would need the downvote instead lol
According to what economic theory?
(IFF) paying for endorsements, self-endorsements, advertising and marketing are "evil" (THEN) we should kill the banner ads and any post that mentions a commercial product, movie, television show, or corporation.
I'm pretty sure people want money to pour into steem (to boost MARKET-CAP) and the most obvious way to spur investment is with promotion services and paid endorsements.
Have the free downvotes "solved" the "problem"? NO. Steemit is still shrinking. Users are fed-up with all the downvote bullying.
Kicking over someone's tip jar so the coins spill into the sewer to be scooped-up by the wealthiest top-earners is not "free-speech".
No one said they were evil, in fact they are all encouraged.. except it should actual have to be paid for. As in - cost money.
Everywhere all over the internet and in real life, advertising costs money. Those banner ads are paid for, marketing is paid for. There is no “Come buy some advertising and we will immediately give you back your money plus some!!” .. that’s not how it works. This is why most individuals who used bid bots had absolutely no interest in promotion, they just wanted a return. So they could pay 50 STEEM and their shit post was all of a sudden on trending. They got their 50 STEEM back immediately, plus some. This has nothing to do with promotion, and if it did, then why would they be upset by downvotes? They still made their post visual, right?
The problem is not promotion, the problem is a model that is not promotion in the slightest.. it’s using a service to self allocate the inflation pool to oneself.
Have you noticed those posts who set the beneficiaries to null and buy votes don’t get hit that bad? Because the author is clearly “paying” for said promotion by burning some of the reward.. which shows they aren’t doing it to self allocate, but because they want eyes on their post. That is how promotion is supposed to work.
Also having individuals who buy votes then hinder the idea of a community with “proof of brain”.. as the community had no choice in allocated its shared inflation to that author, they had no part in it. The author decided themselves what their post was “worth”.
Also.. not sure how your tip jar analogy works unless you literally are putting the tips in their yourself.. as the community didn’t allocate the inflation, the author did.
And free speech has nothing to do with being guaranteed to get paid every time you talk, not sure what this has to do with free speech. Was someone silenced and censored? Did the content get removed from the blockchain when the author was downvoted? Where exactly does rewards have anything to do with free speech?
And have a couple weeks of limited free downvotes “solved” the problem? Well depends on what problem you mean.. it’s solved the problem of plagiarism and spam being rewarded highly and a trending page covered in it. I still think we have a long way to go before that page is anything anyone wants to see, but change happens slowly.
Has downvotes “solved” the low price of STEEM? No. And it wasn’t thought it would.. but I’d say that 3 years of anything goes and authors and investors self allocating large portions of the inflation pool to themselves didn’t either.
I’ve written about downvotes quite a bit and very much understand the frustration, and think it’s normal to have some bumps on the way to finding a balance. I think we have a long road to improve Steem as a whole and this is just part of that journey.
That's exactly how it works.
Spend $10,000.00 on this television ad promoting your car dealership and make $100,000.00 in sales over the weekend!!
Almost all ads are purchased because, "you will immediately make back your money plus some!!”
In sales, yes. You spend money and due to that attention you make money. The ad company doesn’t give it back to you. In this case, you pay the service for the promotion and and they give you your money back plus some.. you didn’t get more “sales” the public didn’t see your product due to the advertising and buy it.. you paid a service and they immediately gave you back your money. Very different things.
They could, conceivably, give you an instant-rebate.
If an ad company gave you an instant-rebate, wouldn't that be within their rights?
If an ad company gave you an instant-rebate, would that be "bad" for the overall economy?
I still don't see the "problem".
The reward-pool has exactly the same effect on inflation and MARKET-CAP regardless of who gathers the largest share.
The reward-pool's economic effect does not change.
It doesn't matter if people use bid-bots or not.
It doesn't matter if people self-vote or not.
The same amount of steem gets injected into the economy regardless.
This makes no sense.
When someone declines rewards, they're basically dumping all their coins into the sewer, where they are scooped up and redistributed to everyone who didn't "decline rewards" with the largest share going to the top-earners (including the steemcleaners which consistently ranks in the top 5).
So, when you decline rewards, you are essentially donating your rewards to the biggest fish.
Of course they're not going to waste a downvote on people who decline rewards, because they've already essentially downvoted themselves.
Setting a portion of the beneficiary to null is not declining rewards, check it out.
Ok, well, declining rewards seemed to be the #1 suggestion that I was seeing.
Burning steem is idiotic (and still primarily benefits the big-fish and top-earners anyway, via-deflation).
https://steemit.com/newsteem/@logiczombie/so-you-want-to-burn-your-steem
Self-voting adds ZERO to the inflation rate. The reward-pool doesn't change.
The "proof-of-brain" doesn't exist. Active whales and top-earners upvote idiotic posts just as much as the bots do. There is no mechanism in place to detect brains.
The author who invests their OWN MONEY into steem-power gets their fair share of a daily allowance (reward-pool), based on their personal INVESTMENT. They should be free to spend that daily allowance (upvotes) to promote any content they deem worthy, even if it is their own.
You can't have a properly functioning FREE-MARKET if you demand that people spend THEIR OWN MONEY only in ways that you personally approve of.
What you're saying is, yes, you invested in steem-power in order to get a bigger allowance, but you can't spend it on yourself (but fail to explain why not).
It would be like saying, you can't shop at your own store and you can't eat at your own restaurant or advertise on your own bill-board.
Self-voting has absolutely no effect on the inflation rate or the MARKET-CAP.
I’m not even sure what you are talking about at this point 🙂 - self voting with your own stake is different than buying votes, which was the original point of this discussion.
Yes people can vote what they want with their stake - that includes up and down votes.
Never said any of this had any affect on the inflation rate, rather where that inflation is allocated.
Thanks for the chat 🙂
Why does it matter "where that inflation is allocated"?
How can buying votes (endorsements) possibly cause economic damage?
Isn't it simply commerce? Don't we want a functioning steem economy?
Don't we want more people to buy goods and services with steem?
Self-voting has no effect on the inflation rate.