Why free downvotes are a good and necessary part of STEEM
There are so many posts and comments out there complaining about downvotes that I feel it's necessary to put out another perspective, why the free downvotes were introduced, and why they are good.
And before you think "well yeah, he's one of the main downvoters" - I am also one of the main recipients and still wouldn't want to revert them being added to the platform.
Let me explain.
That picture is one for the german users, sorry rest of the world
The reward pool is limited. It fills up with a fixed rate (the inflation) and the STEEM which can be paid out depend on that rate. So if someone gets a high reward, there is less left for everyone else.
For a long time we have helplessly watched people engaging in self rewarding behaviour (self-votes, bidbots, upvote4upvote), which lowered the rewards for all the others. Downvotes are described in the whitepaper as the tool to switch the balance from self rewarding to deciding as a community which is the best content. That's the whole value proposition of STEEM - reward good content!
Having downvotes cost the same as upvotes made them being used very scarcely. We had the choice of getting curation rewards for upvoting content, or clean up and giving up on the rewards as an act of altruism. That's why trending looked the way it did.
Now people accuse those who use the downvotes that cleaning up would drive the price of STEEM down. Which direction did it head the last months and years, while they were able to self reward? Isn't it a lot more probable that outside investors stayed away because they saw that the main value proposition is not working, and an economic system where those who have much can assign even more to themselve can't grow organically?
We need to engage more people, we need more and better content, and the way to do this is by rewarding them for their efforts!
Yes, investors are important. But they should invest into a concept, because they believe that the value of their investment will rise. That doesn't mean that they need to get more STEEM, but that STEEM itself needs to become more valuable. And it can only do that if it finally delivers on its promise to bring the best content to the top.
I personally know of >1M STEEM that has been bought since the EIP exactly for the reason that we now have a chance to getting closer to doing so.
As an additional measure, curation rewards have been raised by 100%. The rewards on a post are now equally shared between the content providers and the investors. So investors claiming they need to reward themselves are actively acting against the fundamentals of the platform. They hurt themselves too, as with the platform constantly shrinking because we can't retain authors, the value falls and with it their investment. They keep piling up STEEM for themselves, while the value drops faster than they can collect them. In the end, everyone loses.
A downvote doesn't take something away, it changes the allocation of the funds to be paid out. What's taken away from a self rewarder goes back to the pool, and can be used to reward good content again.
The upmost hilarious claim is that this would be a communist system. Nobody takes away something from your wallet, and nobody wants to. As long as it's not paid out, it's not yours. Consensus between humans needs time and we have 7 days to determine together which content is able to make the platform grow. Just because someone decided to give you a vote after 5 minutes, that doesn't mean you earned that.
Small downvotes of powerless accounts and retaliation downvotes are a side effect. But those don't matter in the big picture. The small ones don't have an effect bigger than the unavoidable dislikes on youtube anyway. And for the retaliation votes it's the same as for the legitimate ones - they don't take anything away, they just make it available for the pool again.
That got a lot longer than intended - tl;dr: don't frown about downvotes, they're healthy for the platform. Use them, take them, and steem on!
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌
Done, I used a few DVs here, you were too convincing! I had extra stacking up - enjoy! lol
Yes i just noticed about downvoting authors content,i was wondering are they on downvote wars or personal reason,but now it's clearly for me why others did that. we need to take care the platform so that inestors will get their benefits they wanted and thats the only way to bring more investors to the platform..
Thanks for the clarifications sir!
I am very sorry to say this @pharesim I have always had you as one of the better Steemians in your behavior but I am really finding it sad that all the people who have constantly been cheerleaders for downvotes are now having to be constantly posting articles justifying why they are good. If something is good it doesn't have to be justified its effects speak for themselves.
The effects actually do speak for themselves. But there are myriads of posts and comments spreading FUD from those speaking from entitlement, and I had to repeat all these points so often the last days to make people understand, that I figured writing an explanation post I can link to would save me a lot of time.
The problem is it it nos just you there are dozens of posts justifying downvotes, if downvotes are good they should speak for themselves no need to be writing about how beneficial they are for Steemit every day, several times a day.
And there will probably be more as long as there are users who didn't get the reasoning yet. Explaining things is a tedious task, and FUD needs counterarguments to not grab hold.
Have another 100% for making the effort. I really appreciate it!
Thank you for helping to drain haejin's voting power :D
That is the best statement I have read about this issue in a long time. Congratulations on hitting the nail on the head.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
I had the doubt, since several small users leave negative votes on my publications, now I understand why, thanks for writing this informative post, greetings!
Just a nitpick, but I disagree that the retaliation votes are harmless. I'm fairly certain that the flag wars drive a number of people away from the platform, and they are also used to create FUD that makes it harder to on-board people. IMO, it's an open question as to whether the benefits outweigh the harms. I would guess that HF21/22 switched the effect of downvotes from net-harmful (pre-HF21/22) to net-beneficial (post-HF21/22), but I also suspect that user behavior is continuing to evolve in response to the new incentives, so future results may vary.
SCOT tokens and SMTs add a whole different dynamic to the equation, too. I think it will be immensely useful to be able to observe and compare the results of different incentive mixes.
I've seen people getting retaliation votes and stopping to use their downvotes as a result. And I've seen a lot more who got even more dedicated in keeping their efforts up.
I don't know of anyone who left because of retaliation. It's easy to avoid by keeping out.
FUD is always a problem. One more thing a lot of the targeted people don't get. Spreading FUD about the downvotes helps as little as self rewarding. Their greed makes them so focused on themselves, that nothing else matters. It seems they'd rather see everything burn than changing their ways to work together as a community.
The problem is, I for one don't like to be bullied into changing my ways. Convince me if you can, by all means.
Yes, I admit freely, I have begun to feel that way and - just in case - reserved the domain http://thetruthaboutsteem.org/ on a server where I can't be downvoted into oblivion. That's how fed up I am with people mingling in my affairs! On the flip side, I have also canceled my power-down, to keep my options open. I'm finding it difficult to decide what the right thing to do might be. As one commenter said earlier, good things don't need reasoning, they stand on their own merits. That really got me thinking...
Ok. I don’t like to comment too much. But I will in this case. There is a overwhelming chorus that I am hearing that people will leave after #newsteem. There are actually standard dataset from Pablo’s post that point to that... it’s an endemic trend since Jan 2018. Keyword “Jan 2018”.... #newsteem is barely a month old or little more. Give it some time! Also there are multiple examples of people investing in a big way after HF. The change after HF got me out of my slumber.. I purchased 216K steem in one month. And I don’t think it’s a significant investment. I am not here to make money. I am here to make a successful social network on a blockchain. It is time for this platform to grow up and make a meaningful step.
Welcome to the club! You're now in a position of power, make people's stay a pleasant one and this place will grow. Network, be friendly, and don't get a big ego and you'll be golden. You're in a good spot!
I too had a change of heart. Posted about it here even though it's not as elegantly stated as this post. The downvotes bad, upvotes good mentality must change if Steemit is to survive as the anonymous and decentralized social media platform that it is. It's the necessary balance for any system to survive. Much love to you all for making it a better place.
so just took a look on steemworld, noticed you flagged this for 100% - wondering why?
https://steemit.com/poetry/@dobartim/memoirs-of-love
Disagreement on rewards.
Definitely...
Source: https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/steem-price-analysis-engine-in-need-of-a-restart
Nice find, they are spot on.
@tipu nominate
Hi @oliverschmid! @bronkong has nominated you to become a @tipU curator! You can now request 3 @tipU upvotes per day on any content you like. The better curation reward you can get, the more upvotes with higher value you can send. You can nominate new curators as well!
To send the upvote, please comment under the post and at the end of the comment, add: @tipu curate. To nominate someone else you think would make a good @tipU curator, reply to one of their posts or comments with: @tipu nominate. All of this is of course free :)
Check out https://tipu.online/curator?oliverschmid for more information and to see your stats :). Have fun!
I fully agree that downvotes are needed, that nothing is stolen, and communist seems very overstated... :)
I downvoted before they were free. I selectively read before I upvote and before I downvote. I don't consider who the author is and instead I try to objectively consider the content, relevance and engagement
If 10 people read a post and like it ... they can upvote it.
2 people hate it they can downvote it.
Most simply ignore it.
That is the wisdom of the crowd.
A group of people colluding on who votes too much for what, with complete disregard to the content or quality of the posts and with no communicated standards.
People are getting revenge downvoted, it doesn't take a lot of empathy to understand why this would shake up a small community. Not everyone knows who is on what team. All they see is a bunch of powerful people (stake, not skills or knowledge)
Don't take my word on it, just consider it.
Pharsim is inspiring.
I just came down off a downvoting binge courtesy of a lovely list.
I also downvoted before it was cool. There were more things to downvote back then, too.
I didn't ask him not to downvote. I downvote also! :) I suggested he consider how it might feel and look to the community. :)
A lot of the community is confused. I don't know very many people getting downvoted for abuse, I know a few getting it for revenge. They generally understand why and maybe just regret following trails, etc.
I think it's those negligible -10% votes from accounts with less than 50sp that are confusing people.
It's confusing me to. What is the point?
'Wisdom of the crowd' applies when 1 voice is one piece of wisdom.
When 1 voice is wroth 50 xtimes the voice of another, it becomes 'wisdom of the oligarchs'.
A massive difference, and one that can't be changed, here.
The market knows - and see's - the difference, even if the oligarchs here are willfully blind to the flawed structure.
DPOS doesnt have to work like this, btw
Imagine 1 voice 1 vote on content, and 'dividend' payouts, annually, instead - based on the price of steem and the proportion of it that you hold/time over the year... THAT could be steem price rocketing! - (every one's headed in the same direcion then as well....Like we almost have the same vision, or something).
(no pedantic definitions of 'dividends' needed, ty -it was tho most effort I was going to put into painting the picture).
No salt, just sense.
There are self voters with big and with small stake. Your sense doesn't apply here.
1 voice 1 vote isn't possible due to reasons explained hundred of times already - there's no way to limit someone to one account on the Internet. None, whatever idea you might try to come up with, it won't work.
I'm glad you enlightened me. I'll stop thinking now, and join the rest of ya..lol
You can of course keep thinking and try to solve a problem as old as p2p networks. Computer scientists all over the world will bow down before you when you do find the solution. One that doesn't require sending our IDs to Steemit Inc and letting them regulate access to the blockchain at least ;)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
How cool is that?
I might start thinking again.....
Of course if one person had one vote - on content - and payouts were yearly based purely on stake size -then there would be no financial incentive to use numerous accounts to upvote posts....zero.
This way - everyone would want to be upvoting what they saw as the best quality posts of their genre- to make the site more attractive-to attract more users- to grow the price- to get bigger payouts at the end of the year.
Just sayin'...
...the answers are easy - it's asking the right questions that can be tricky.
I'll stop thinking now, my nose has started to bleed...
If I understand right you suggest to get rid of content rewards? What would be the incentive for authors?
....to build a place that people want to put their eyes on, want to come to.
..thus increasing it's value, and the price goes up -thus higher payouts after the year..
Give each new user 30 steem (or whatever) to be able to post - locked in for the year.
Any increase in price, the money would be deducted from the growth - a net zero cost for steeminc.
For simplicity sake.....the price on joining is 10 cents per steem, the price after the year - and they decide to withdraw - and the price is then 20 cents.
The proportion they are entitled to is, say, $60 - they get $30. (the initial steem given to be able to post, is deducted).
Minus value - under $30 - it stays locked in. It's a win win.
It would give incentive people to put money into steem also, that way - you will be backing your own stables, ( not your own horse).
Then it comes down to all of us pulling in the one direction- to get the price higher, through improving the quality content of the site, and increasing eyes on it.
A common goal for all (one missing entirely at the moment).
Create the demand through increasing quality -It's always been a good strategy.
(My consultation fees are very reasonable, btw).
My nose is really bleeding quite heavily, now...lol
A bit hard to follow you, hope my nose doesn't start bleeding too in the process.
If everyone gets the same returns, depending on investment only, what's the incentive to produce quality content? The votes, like Reddit mana?
Whaleshares actually did what i think he is proposing.
0 content rewards and only stake payouts. A basic POS.
Problem is..... no one will want to waste time there to post anything.
Whaleshares has been dead for a few months now but this idea Lucy here is proposing will be a nail in the coffin.
If people cannot look at a annul return time frame - Very true.
The final nail in the coffin? Maybe, mate.
(but I'm not responsible for the other 720 nails hammered into the coffin, previously...)
I'm coming to the conclusion (over this last 12 months, really) that it's just not a sustainable model.
Which is a pity, IMO.
...At least my very rough proposal will change the dynamics - because one thing is for sure - they ain't working as it is.
You hit the nail on the head. It's not the "wisdom of the crowd" downvotes that irk me as content creator. In fact, I don't remember ever getting one of those, and very seldom feeling the need to give one. It's the "a group of people colluding" downvotes that bring my blood to boiling point. Not because of the few pennies it might cost me, but on account of the injustice of it.
Nerdy nitpick: it was an increase of 73.33% for curation, not 100% because the total split by authors and curators dropped from 75% to 65%.
#oldsteem curation = 0.25x0.75 = 18.75% of inflation
#newsteem curation = 0.5x0.65 = 32.5% of inflation
32.5/18.75 = 1.7333333...
I just checked the trending page and unfortunately, I don't see any progress in regards to quality.
I agree. To some extend I understand some investors that vote4vote, if they don’t, who will vote for them? Ideally when you make a quality post, experienced curators curate. (ideally because social media feature is still strong on steem anyway). But are curators really curate according to quality or curate for many other reasons? For example, you see 5/10 posts on trending at the moment is translation post for steemfest, ofc i know some authors sent liquid reward to steemfest fund account. But how many will read and decide to go just because the posts are on trending, is it really necessary? Just one example...
Investors don't even need to write, curation rewards are high enough to beat inflation so they don't even lose proportionally.
Yes, it is an issue too that always the same stuff by the same people gets voted. That could be tackled if we wouldn't be so busy with the self rewarders.
There isn’t many objectively good content around tbh, I guess that’s why investors aren’t happy when they see higher rewarded manually curated posts aren’t better than their shitposts, they feel unfair.
if I were a huge stakeholder, I won’t be happy to see certain “3 truths 1 lie” contest post trending, while anyone can write similar kind of shitposts lol.
Just an example. The current general quality on the site is just not persuading.
Have a look at the curangel compilations. Lots of great stuff in there. One just has to look for it, and we desperately need more people doing so to make it more visible for everyone.
I’ll take a look. Lots of great stuff there but none made in trending is a problem, considering trending is now manually curated.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I think trending is still mostly a result of autovotes, or "curators" who don't really dig and have list of names or so.
We made some progress, as that small accounts at least can hope for a few dollars with good content. We're far from having fixed trending, it's a long way there if we'll ever be able to reach it.
I took a look at the curangel posts and appreciate your efforts. Posts they select is good, good in a way they put effort in writing them and they aren’t bad, but also few are that outstanding either.
Nobody should be entitled of any rewards in my opinion, we are all (most here at least) average content creators that have never made viral anywhere else in other social network. Then I don’t see how trending authors at the moment deserve to be there either, as te content isn’t top notch there either.
Can't disagree with that. Unfortunately, lots of great content creators have left again because they weren't appreciated. We either change that as a community, or fail together. Nobody needs a platform full of average or less.
sigh... hope things can turn around eventually but i can’t come up with a good solution at the moment.
Then again social media is full of average content anyway, i don’t like the trendings on instagram either, it’s the same that I don’t like pop culture, but there probably most people like those trendings i guess.
Compared to those, trending here isn’t serve either as an example of good piece of content or hot gossip/conttoversial topics/newest news, etc. All this said, I also can’t figure really how steem should be tho.
You mean socialist.
Communists share.
They cooperate, not feast from the misery of others.
Historical documentation.
It wasn't my claim ;)
Ok, they mean socialust.
Intentionally miseducated 'muricans are annoying, to me.
I agree with you man on this stuff. Good to see your post pop up on my news feed. <3
Are you aware what decentralization really means? In a decentralized network is anyone able to run a node at any time and no one has more power than anyone else. Both is not true for Steem. You are just emotionally involved in this system and therefore praise it and put it like it would be decentralized while it is clearly not. You even state it that "smaller" accounts have nothing to say.
The last hardfork even improved the power in the hands of the whales by giving them higher curation and free downvotes. Now the necessary trust towards them is even higher than ever before. Though there is no room for trust in a decentralized network.
Posts like this work on this platform for praising the platform. But outside this filter bubble you would not get any agreements like here. Make a post inside the ethereum subreddit about decentralization and see what you will get there.
If Steem would be decentralized anyone would be able to run a node and all votes would have exactly the same weight. There were no 21 witnesses and of course there would be a problem with people having several accounts but you can not replace this unsolved technical problem with such weird workarounds.
This example does not work. Even if you try to look for indications, the question is, how many NEW people bought Steem to become a whale since the hardfork? Whales buying more does not indicate anything since they decided to go this way of improving their situation.
Any related to your image. Getting a big downvote from one group does not represent any kind of majority. It is just a powerful group deciding independently on their own. You just follow the argumentation of someone powerful instead of having a discussion before where the majority made a decision afterwards. This is no decentralization, this is leading and following.
These are just some reasons proven why DPoS is never going to work on the long distance. What do you think why people decide to post on Medium without getting any reward instead of using Steem? They have bigger trust in the centralized administration than in anonymous private persons here.
Decentralized means there is no single point of authority. This is given. The definition doesn't say anything about everyone having exactly the same say. By your definition Bitcoin isn't decentralized, as the biggest miners could change the protocol and everyone else's more would be running on a fork.
Everyone can run a node, everyone can be a witness. Like with every other coin, getting to produce a big amount of blocks requires a big investment.
And people don't become whales over night, or in a month. How many new whales have been created in the months before? That measure is useless.
And for the last part, there are rewards on medium for successful authors.
So a company owned by two or more people is decentralized?
If one pool has > 51%, would people still trust Bitcoin? With Steem being in the hands of 21 witnesses, no one complains, weird.
No one is allowed to complain about politics because anyone can be the next president.
You are going to be a whale within minutens when buying a huge load of Steem.
Why are you asking me? You claimed to personally know people buying so many Steem suddenly.
A company is a single entity of its own. It can be shut down, steem can't.
And there is no way for anyone outside of that entity to have influence on the owners (except for the state). Steem witnesses influence is decided on in a decentralized way, not by appointing themselves.
The only thing you could criticize there is that some shareholders have a bigger saying than others, depending on the size of their stake. But that's 1) unavoidable in a p2p network and 2) understandable, because they have the most to lose when the platform develops in a direction they don't see as desirable.
Why weird? As you say, it's 21 (actually it's a lot more), not one.
Anyone, but not everyone. Nothing holds you back from becoming a witness today.
Yes, people. Not one single person. One of them went from close to 0 to half-whale, but that's the best I can offer so far.
My question was how many did this before the hardfork?
hI @pharesim i like what you said here. but i disagree one part. You said:
''The only thing you could criticize there is that some shareholders have a bigger saying than others, depending on the size of their stake. But that's 1) unavoidable in a p2p network and 2) understandable, because they have the most to lose when the platform develops in a direction they don't see as desirable.''
It seems to me that we need a more democratic witness selection process. Stake based witness voting is clearly not in the best interest of Steem.
If we can fix this problem, Steem will be unstoppable and that may well be what the powers that be are trying to avoid.
i suggest you, to read something about the "ninja mining" of steem.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.60
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1410943.240
if you use the stake as only parameter to measure vote weight, the ("initial") distribution has to be faire
perhaps mind changing for you:
source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.07310.pdf
for me this was kind of mind changing. i dont like dpos anymore
I don't need to read on this, and it won't change my mind, as I was there nearly from the start ;) Which is a proof that it was not as "ninja" as some people like to make it seem. Yes, there were only a few people interested in getting into it, and I do agree with the distribution being one of the big problems we had. It's been improved on a lot though, there are many big holders who got in later.
It's still hard to get into/stay in the top witnesses without massive whale support, and especially one miner account has an unproportionately high say in who's up there. It needs more time and more people interested in investing significantly to fix these issues.
I've been downvoting for years and had plenty of retaliation for it. Some keep doing that long after I left them alone. I see it as part of my curation duty on Steem. The free downvotes have gone a long way to reducing the abuse/misuse of the platform, but I still think some of the big accounts could reduce their self-voting. Save it for when they need to cancel out flags. Most of them get good votes anyway. It's not like there's a shortage of under-appreciated content making cents.
I do not know what to say. I come here as I can manage but always return to a lovely community. I got a huge whale flag just because I had been resteemed by someone else. Honestly it feels unsafe and discouraging. Downvotes should be a serious thing for copyright infringements, inappropiate content, and not personal vendettas and disagreements that end up shooting people not involved in those wars. I was backed by the community but others were not that lucky.
They shouldn't be used for revenge, that's true. And especially not shooting bystanders. Unfortunately there will always be immature people. Good to hear that the community was there for you!
Yes, It felt really warm that candidly people supported and even counteracted it. Still as I say the only reason I found is that I had been resteemed and all the posts in the feed had been flagged. My post was already doing well but there was another user that had just returned to steemit after almost a year, just saying hi back so it felt so unfair. So yes, it's such a delicate thing. Not being around as much as I'd like to I often miss the gist of these feuds. I think there should be a way that if clearly a downvoteis obviously in bad faith, would be able to counteract it like if too many says a downvote is not valid it should stop taking effect, but yet again that would be some kind of filtering which is not the spirit of this place either, guess it's complicated hmm dunno it's kind of weird but some people in these flag wars have significant sp and can wreck your ship not being a creator's fault.
I fully understand, someone I resteemed has been targeted too. So I won't resteem any more. I don't care for my own posts, so that's fine, but that was below anything I would have expected before.
It's sad. And complicated :)
I'm actually grateful to have been resteemed :) meant only someone liked it enough to share so still take that as a compliment. Who could have guessed? sigh, yes, complicated. But yes, it makes you feel a bit uncovered and in the need of treading lightly, should not be that way.
Here we can appreciate the great weakness in the downvotes system.
It has great weakness, it is undeniable.
This weak point is causing great damage and must be corrected immediately. I do not say that the entire system is wrong, but it has a crack and there is leaking everything good.
Harmful people have already found this crack and are using it to harm. But this damage affects STEEM and STEEMIT even more than the victims of downvotes.
I feel like the same people complaining about downvotes, especially on bid botted for profit cases are the same who complained that the EIP would only hurt Steem. Well, needless to say just after one month it is already having a much better effect on genuine curation of content and it's only gonna get better from here on out. They just gotta leave that oldsteem mentality behind and get with the curve. :P
Yeah, because your bullying them with massive downvotes. And apparently you're proud of it. Sad!
You see, you could show some patience and take it slow. If I was in your shoes, I would leave tiny upvotes and a comment, like so:
"I really liked your post and would have given you an X% upvote instead of the 1% token. I was even considering following you, but I noticed you have bought votes for your post. So I guess you don't need my support."
That's how you teach an old dog new tricks. Use a stick, and it might get you bit instead.
We actually do these comments with curangel - if we would have upvoted it. Would be somewhat dishonest to tell every vote buyer that he would have received an upvote if he didn't do that, no?
Investors are limited. They put money in to take money out, and this gives Steem value. So if an investor gets a high reward, they are doing it with their own money. See rate-limited voting in the whitepaper (15/32). If you and I go in 20%/80% on a pizza, and I paid 80%, I will get 8 slices. If something happens which prevents that, you’ll never share a pizza with me again. Don’t expect three slices of my pizza without my permission and then expect me to not call you a communist. This is simple math, don't give me that common core B.S. The sense of entitlement that communists and socialists have is ultimately their own undoing, this has been proven time and time again. Don't shit on me and tell me it's chocolate rain.
What a silly example once again. The pizza and the money are gone after eating it, Steem stays around. Your stake doesn't go down, not even percentage wise, curation rewards are enough to beat inflation. You are the one who wants a free pizza, by increasing the percentage and the value of your initial investment on the backs of those doing the work of creating attractive content. Guess what, free pizza doesn't exist.
I will not call you a feudalist now, but I can do silly examples too! Do you expect free flights when you invest into an airline? Is it communism or socialism that the pilots and all the other personnel get paid?
The sense of entitlement here is all on the side of the investors. Something not completely unique to steem I have to admit.
https://twitter.com/JackSmithIV/status/857804261509517312
People invested a bunch of money into a system that creates virtual tokens. These virtual tokens are generated at a certain percentage depending on the year and based on the total supply. It's 2019, which means that the percentage is 8.24. In two and a half months the percentage goes down to 7.82. Long story short, there is enough pizza to get us to 2035. But yes, the pie gets smaller and smaller every year, and that's by design. And if Steem survives the mass culling of investors, this means the coin will gain more and more value, and this is because of the planned scarcity. Also, if I pay for or enroll in a program that offers frequent flier miles, you bet your ass I'll expect some free flights. If not, I'll take my business elsewhere.
As said in a previous discussion, we wouldn't need any content for that system you have in mind. Unnecessary overhead, and there's plenty of PoS coins that offer exactly that.
Steem never offered guaranteed rewards for posting, who thinks that made a bad investment because they didn't research properly. Your stake gives you a right to curation rewards (getting under 8% means you do something extremely wrong), and the interest on SP (2%). That's it, more than the inflation, everything you want more is free pizza.
If you expect frequent flyer miles for buying the stock, you set yourself up for disappointment. That's not the companies fault then. You invested in something which has a chance to raise in value, you didn't spend money for something in return.
That's the thing though; Not everyone comes here to do PoS, some do, and it can look nasty on trending. This is why trending needs to get fixed. However, if we don't respect the upvote autonomy of self voters, and or bid bot users, then we'll lose stakeholders. As people sell, it will drive the value of the token down. You know what I think, we should add a voting system (Reddit style,) that only works to sort content. It doesn't allocate value, it just sorts. One sort vote per IP address and all votes are equal. A system like this would encourage me to go to trending every day, just to down sort undesirable content, and to be able to do so with a clean conscience knowing that I'm not disregarding the merit of someone's stake or for that matter, stealing from a bid bot user. Change downvote back to flag and call the upvote button a Tip Jar. Maybe I just need to learn to code, it could be so easy to make Steem good. The fact it hasn't gotten there yet is a colossal failure of imagination.
Well, that's a whole other system, where content isn't connected with the coin at all. If someone comes here not believing in the idea to reward the best content they're simply in the wrong place and would be better off to browse Reddit or create their own subreddit and invest in a PoS coin.
That you suggest one vote per IP address shows that you would need to learn a lot more than coding. The stake weighted voting is done for a reason, imagination isn't a positive when it leads to unrealistic ideas.
I agree in part, but also disagree and let me explain why. Regardless of the reason they came to the platform. They provided a service in purchasing the token and continue to provide a service in the HODL if they are powered up.
The goal should be to keep them powered up. If this means they are dead set on on extracting the maximum value that the rate limited voting allows, then so be it.
If it's really a problem, fix the rate limited voting. Anything is better than a bunch of reward poolice running rampant around the blockchain looking down their nose at content creators and doing the civil asset forfeiture thing.
I think you misunderstand, the upsort downsort would be condenser only, it would have no effect on the blockchain or the rewards.
Nobody forfeits any assets. It's not theirs as long as it's not paid out.
I misunderstood the sorting, but I still don't get his that would incentivize professional content creators to spend their time here. They need to get paid, not rewarded by a ranking.
Try convincing a freshly on-boarded user of that. I tell you what, for sake of argument let's call the downvote a sanction. Now, I don't know how you feel about sanctions but they're generally viewed by learned people as an act of war. So if you don't want to think of it as civil asset forfeiture (or theft), think of it as an act of war. And this is where retaliatory downvotes and or flag war come from. Somebody starts it, and then it just continues on ad infinitum.
That's the thing, the sorting system is separate. You'd still have the upvote button, but it would be called a Tip Jar. The upsorts and downsorts are seperate, Reddit style. I think this kind of system would create more harmony, less flagwars, and less drama.
Yes, sure, when you give it names like that it sounds negative.
To me, it's an expression of opinion. Don't know how you feel about those ;)
It becomes a flag war when those who can't stand others expressing their opinions use it as a weapon, strictly personal and no matter the content they use it on, and even attacking others by association (resteems for example).
A tip jar system where you can tip yourself without consequences from a limited shared tip pool doesn't give talented authors an edge, so that's an idea which has nothing to do with the idea behind steem. If you want to tip someone, pay it from your own pocket, not from the community's.
I love expressions of opinions, but not when they're attached to negative financial outcomes. In fact, with the looming threat of flags, I think it's safe to say that you've got a lot of disingenuous people posting stuff that they think others want to hear. Wouldn't you like to see people post their honest opinions without fear of reprisal? Let's say I sink a lot of work into an epic post, and someone updoots it to a face value of $10.00. Whether or not I have the value in my possession yet, is not the point.
The point is, I did the work and someone tried to convey value. When you intercept this conveyance with a downvote, you disrespect the stakeholder who upvoted it, and also the content creator who is already working for only a pittance. It'd be like if you went into a restaurant and snatched a waiters tip and burned it with fire. You didn't steal the money because it wasn't even in the waiter's possession yet, in fact, had he not seen you do it on the security camera, he would have been none the wiser. But he did see it, and he knows where the people intended for the money to go, and thus, he feels as if though he was robbed. Which is the truth, was the man robbed or not?
Ahh, I see. so your downvote is just an opinion, but their downvote is a gun? That's kind of hypocritical if you think about it. Right now I'm imagining a car full of gangsters who do a drive-by and then go out to eat at MikkyDees. Then the restaurant gets shot up because of the clap back. Three people die, and the confused hoodlum says to the police officer: crying "I don't know why they did it, all we did was express an opinion. We didn't even kill anybody, and they killed three of my homies."
See there you go thinking that reward pool is yours. You can only take what the rate limited voting allows for. This mechanism was put into place making it impossible for people to draw more than their fair share from the pool. If the maths are wrong, fix the rate-limited voting, crank it down a notch.
You digress. We've been talking about self rewarding until now.
An upvote is not a tip someone gives, but an expression of opinion that the content deserves a reward.
When they use it as method of trying to suppress me from expressing my opinion by going after everything I do, even unrewarded comments helping others, and extending this action over others they associate with me, that's a clear yes. If they refuse to give a reason except the kindergarden style "you started" and their only goal is to stop me from expressing my opinion they even admit it.
Oh man. I give up. You keep arguing with faulty comparisons to justify taking funds from a community pool for yourself. Let's agree to disagree and save each other's time instead of running in circles.
Hmm, I thought we were debating flags.
Sheesh, let's shoot for some consistency, okay? If an upvote is an expression of an opinion and it's not a tip, then surely a self-vote must also be an expression of an opinion and not the taking of funds. I mean, this is according to your logic, it's not funds right, it's just an opinion?
Fair enough. I think for today we've reached the stage of beating a dead horse anyway. Thank you for the comment about Ayn Rand, I take it as a compliment because she was a free-market genius. So, I just watched a brief overview of her philosophy of objectivism. I don't think I'll go so far to say that altruism is evil as the video suggested, but now I intend on researching it further to find out why she thinks that way.
Backs slowly away from the keyboard, agreeing to disagree.P.S. Thanks for the chat. Maybe in the future we will
find something else to either agree or disagree on.
Yeah, genius, I figured you'd say that :D
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objectivism
This is very good. I like it. It will be a constant battle fighting self voters and potentially will end up doing more harm than good. Potentially much more.
We seem to miss that the goal of Steem is to tokenize the internet. It is NOT meant to be a blogging platform, that was just its first use case.
While I will agree that tending was trash before, even now that it’s “cleaned up” I still don’t care about it...mostly just whales upvoting whales. I’d prefer to use my upvote to support the people who support me rather than glom on like the rest to get rewards for clicking a button.
I also think that the flippant attitude of users toward the countless downvote trolls is shameful...sure, they don’t do much damage, but they certainly hurt people’s feelings, especially noobs and small accounts who don’t understand why they’ve been downvoted (no reason anyway, just because it’s fun and free).
I, for one, am trying to combat them instead of brushing them off as an unfortunate consequence of “making Steem better.”
The belief that downvoting someone upvotes everyone else is just a rationalization to let trolls live with themselves.
Who will want to tokenize their platform when they see that the first proof of concept leads to self rewarding of big holders instead of engaging new participants?
There are many more people to support than yourself and your friends or the whales in trending. Both actions don't help with growing steem.
Your comment seems to be the rationalization here.
Not sure, precisely, what you think I'm rationalizing, but I guess we can agree to disagree.
Thank you for writing this way - it's easy to understand!
I've resteemed it in the hope that many others may allow themselves to be open - minded and read on what you wrote and perhaps it would clarify things out for the many of us because the many obviously don't understand why the dern flag is there.
This birthed more questions ha ha!
Is it almost empty atm so the flag has become a necessity or it's purelybecause of the abuse and the purpose of rewarding great contents more?
ditto on that! however, are we trying to be appealing to the masses who are mostly not cambridge/ivy league literate or the later?(this is not an insult am just stating what I think is an obvious fact when we refer to the masses) if we are trying to encourage the masses to join us- would it really make the value of steem rise? if it is the othey way around would it also give the same effect or we don't really know? After 3 years, I thought the value of Steem is somehow dependent on btc.
The last part is a possible vaccine, we do tend to think that we've already earned it the moment the upvote get casted on our posts not realizing that it ain't 7 days yet and it may still change till the last 12 hours - that's one hmmmm.. moment for me! Thanks!
I still am not a fan of the flag but I do understand that there's a cancer that needs to be cured in the system, after several posts have exposed many names - am no longer surprised of the need for it to be implemented, I just wish the ones who decided on flags would not stop to it and think of a better and more amicable way of balancing the rewards and getting every great content producers get to trending plus How do we know that the circle jerks would not just switch to upvoting the trending knowing that they would earn curation rewards on that specially if the trending posts has much or am I seeing this shortsightedly again?
I also want to ask this - say, a certain newbie does create great content, value packed yada, yada, meets all the criteria that author gets support and finally keeps trending - how big is that author allowed to be till the support stops or should it actually continue specially if they continue making considerably great posts? If we think we're going to bigger in the future but we'll only be supporting a certain group of unique authors would we not become unsustainable in the end? Those recipients would eventually grow, too and how do we ensure that if a new set of unique newbie authors exist - we'd still be able to serve this very purpose? How big is big? I thought dolphinhood is already satisfying enough but I've watched the many bulked up to orca and minnows seem to multiply and shit posts continued to grow as I saw so many loo pics get passed on.
Am going out after this so if you reply forgive me if I get to see it on my next visit! TC and enjoy autumn!
It can't run empty. What comes in goes out, if someone gets more others get less.
All of them - the masses would profit from having a source for ivy league content so to say, but they wouldn't (and shouldn't) make a living with shitposting.
How the value plays out depends on a lot of factors, and I can't honestly forsee that. We have more chances for it to rise if people don't think this platform rewards people for having something in their wallet I assume.
Not everyone can get high rewards by upvoting trending. As soon as something is on trending, the curation rewards are bad, as the high rewards go to those who voted on it first. Trying to predict what might become trending is part of the concept, but if everyone jumps on the same authors that becomes highly competitive. It's better for your own rewards to vote on something small that becomes big later, than something that is already big. That also kind of answers your next question, there is no hard limit to adding support, but for yourself it's always better to find the next trending post instead of piling onto one that's already there.
Thanks! I have a few new questions not related to this reply though - just a few thoughts I had earlier.
If a post gets flagged and a certain amount was removed from that post's rewards - does it mean that the person who used the flag on that post somehow gets to decide who the reward goes to? It kind'a make me think that it looks like that. If it has that effect how are we sure that the amount of reward taken out of a flagged post considerably reasonable enough to cast on that post?
Does any huge account holder who'd cast a flag on a post get to earn from downvoting? If so, would that not be considered abused, too, specially if they're capable of giving that as an upvote to more deserving unique post that could possibly get to trending specially if they happen to have casted it with a perfect timing? Wouldn't they be earning much specially if they flag a post heavily?(I have a hunch am seeing this last one wrong.)
Lastly, just how big a group is this circle that it seems to be causing much damage to the point that their actions have summoned the flag back? A lot?
EDIT : I took another peek at the trending and bumped into a mention of community - I've heard this a long time ago, afaik it's not new, how do we know this won't birth to another form of circle jerking? If it would be alright - then what's the point of what's being done now?
Hi @englishtchrivy
I really appreciate you asking all the questions
It will also make me try to understand this when @pharesim answers you
No. It's returned to the pool and distributed to everyone else based on the votes they received. All upvotes count a little bit more.
Huge. Everyone got used to the system being broken, and it will take a long time to change the culture, if it's possible at all.
Can't predict how communities will work out, we will see.
it's hard to understand for chinese
Do you mind translating into Chinese?
Haha. That would better be done by a native speaker who understands English too, I don't want to rely on Google translate.
Or was that an offer by you to do so? Then please, go ahead, that would be awesome!
Who is to decide what is quality content or not?
I see the same problem developing with the downvotes that was there before. This imbalance between the minnows and the whales. Only now the minnows that have the idea that certain practices are good or bad can now downvote each other. It doesn't matter if you're making good content and contributing to the value of steem in this way - anyone can downvote you for any reason.
The absence of an upvote in the previous system should have been enough to keep things in check. Simply adding a costless downvote does not solve anything. it makes things more complicated. Stupidly complicated.
I've just started releasing some music from a music project called Zen in a Nightclub, it's based on improvisation and involves artists from all around the world. I used a bid bot minnowbooster.net to promote my post.
It's good content, it should be seen, sometimes my content is picked up by curators and sometimes it is not.
I get a comment and a downvote from @acidyo telling me that I have received a downvote for using a bidbot.
I have a steem wallet with less than 150 steem in it, none of it I have put actual cash into, only generated from rewards. If I'm not using steem for promotion, besides steem power, what do I do with that steem?
Not only that, I am not the big whale that is causing the system to crash by using a bid bot. I am a small time user that is creating far greater quality content than many other accounts that have a much higher value.
It shouldn't matter that I use a bid bot.
Instead of @acidyo looking at the content and deciding its value, and giving a productive comment - I am immediately judged on my use of a bid bot and on that alone, without even looking at the content. With free downvotes small users and their spite have the power to pull down even smaller users just because. It's created the domain for virtual bullying.
How is this helping the platform? I'm on the edge about whether to use steem at all or not. It's becoming quite useless and now with free downvotes has given any Joe Blow the power to fuck you for any reason they imagine in their lucid mind.
Let's use our brains on this one.
I don't think steem is the future. Something else will emerge, but for sure steem has paved the way for that new thing.
The community should decide together what's quality and what not. You rewarding yourself break that system. Thinking you should be allowed to do that, and then saying that you don't think the system will work at all is very self centered and giving out a bit fuck you to everyone who is trying to make it work.
If it helps you to get over the edge: please don't use steem.
I am not making money off this. I am doing it for the love of it.
I am not loving steem. Goodbye steem.
It used to be acceptable to use minnowbooster. I wasn't aware the rules changed.
Now we have new rules and new upstarts thinking they know everything.
I honestly cannot be bothered.
"If it helps you to get over the edge: please don't use steem."
This was added later in an edit.
I won't use steem. It's ok. I'll use real life. I'll get away from computers and speak with real people.
More than anything this whole exercise has taught me that expression cannot be contained in electronic form and we lose the live aspects of things. We've lost the life trying to put a value on everything.
Steem is full of mediocre content. And that is not improving.
The whales still rule the day and the rewards still end up in the pockets of those that have. It's a general rule of thumb, those that have will be given more and those that don't will have whatever it is they have taken from them.
Free downvotes doesn't change this.
"You rewarding yourself break that system."
I am not rewarding myself. I don't get money from using this bid bot, it's just promotion. It uses the same steem that I put into it, to make my content seem a little more popular. There is no real accumulation of wealth, am not suddenly in charge of the keys to the inflation of steem and giving myself all the wealth.
This is how you make it seem.
I am not the enemy in this equation.
Whales will abuse because that is business.
You do what you can with what you have. If bid bots aren't 'legal' anymore then other means will come to the fore to make something be perceived as popular.
Numerous accounts with networks set up that are not in any way honest about voting of content because it is popular are generated by whales. They get votes on content because that's where they want the votes, not because that's what is what the people want.
It's the nature of 'attracting investors' and putting a value on things. This is business. Art and business traditionally do not mix.
It seems that those that have gone ahead and decided to express themselves on here have done nothing more than become content slaves for the whales.
And if you say it's becoming more equal, well good for you, the whales aren't getting smaller and the need for their money is not going away.
A new platform must be generated in which everyone is equal from the start. No new money can be brought in, it must be open source and volunteer based and yes it will have problems. I see this as the only way.
Great work ♥️
Are free downvotes really good for all of or just for you @pharesim so you can buy it more at lower price.
Check the chart
Image source www.coinbase.com
Price of steem is down big time so real investiors here are not happy with all this negativity.
I understand that lobby is big obstacle here but at least we all share same interest-To Make Money for our families.
I think some cool rules of downvotes should be researched sooner than later.
At least you are trying to improve but that is long ways approach.
Would you please stop downvoting my post.
:)
Price has been going down long before free downvotes. Compared to the last year and a half it's pretty stable now.
Price is not going up that is for sure.
Basically you are just running in circle without real solution and you hope people here will get to know your name. We call it professional next level spam and steem platform abuse just.on another way.
However I dont support downvote as only solution for general public knowledge.
There are good and bad sides of that. Mostly bad downvote sides.
Don't worry, people do know my name.
As a blacklisted spammer it's not surprising that you don't like the downvotes.
It even don´t makes a difference if you are a spammer or just not hear to mummys advice in these times on steemit !
Here's the chart after the hardfork. It's more stable than ever. We're on a good way.
Having another perspective is always a good thing and I can see the reasoning in some of your points.
No, being scared of retaliation from the big boys made them being used scarcely. And that hasn't changed.
I concede that it it looked bad sometimes in some categories. In the categories I'm following it looked just fine most of the time. I'm not opposed to doing whatever is necessary and legal to push one's content to the top, provided the content is reasonably valuable and everybody has an equal opportunity to do so. I consider this marketing.
Sometimes up, and sometimes heavily so. Since #newsteem only down. But I admit, that's subjective, and we can't really tell with the multitude of factors that influence price.
Strongly disagree. People being people, in their filter bubbles, this will never happen as long as money is involved. "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" is pretty much hardcoded in our DNA since we were apes. Who has the prettier back has never and will never figure into it.
Sure. The money the thief stole isn't gone. Somebody else has it now. Everything is fine then, I guess. So we can rape the reward pool to our hearts content then? After all, the rewards aren't gone, they're only in a different wallet. Yay!
In my mind the main value proposion was economic freedom. Making downvotes free has skewed this in the wrong direction. Using them excessively is sending the wrong signal to potential investors and new Steemians alike. Who wants to be in a social evironment or invest their money where thugs and bullies can hijack the system?
How is that different from the way it is now? Oh, actually it is. It has gotten even worse for the little guy. So I guess it has changed.
Patently wrong. I have earned it in the eyes of that person. (Or I bought it legally.) And you don't have the right to nullify that person's decision. If you don't like my post, that's fine. Move on and reward something you deem worthier. That's your right. Interfering with my rewards and my voters' curation just because you have more VP is simply wrong.
And you think by bullying them via free downvotes into a certain behavior, and by cutting their rewards, you can retain them better? What did you smoke?
Look, I can only give you my personal perspective as a content creator. I can get behind the idea of splitting the rewards down the middle as a big incentive to foster organic curation. I can also sympathize with the concept of less vote buying for promo purposes and not hog the trending page just because I could. For me, I have decided to buy only as much as it takes to overcome that 20 Steem hurdle in order to give my organic voters every incentive to come back.
What I absolutely, positively, cannot get on board with is, being bullied by a bunch of self-enriching thugs whose votes I used to BUY just because they got religion. (Well, some of them pretend to have religion now and they're still circle jerking each other.) I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to do something about it or just leave - so much about author retention...
Vote buying is like prostitution. It may be ugly, you may object to it, but it's not going away as long as there are whores and johns. And as long as it's legal it must be tolerated by a free society. You don't stamp out prostitution by having vigilante gangs of thugs club the Johns in the street and steal their money. You make a law by democratic means and then you enforce it.
Until then, if you are a whale, by all means, take advantage of the new split and curate what you like with all your might! Think of it like training a dog - change things gently with reward, not punishment. It might in time even work on an old dog like me ;-) After all, vote buing isn't really profitable. The current vigilante vote police approach will fail. You may push, you may even push hard, but some people will simply not be pushed around. Try something positive instead - please!
Yes, my stake gives me the right to nullify someone else's decision. As their stake gives them the right to make everyone else's decision worth less by upvoting someone. The rewards are decided on in a process, not at the point of someone casting their vote.
There are two ways in curation: assign a bunch of the shared rewards to everyone else (downvotes) or one single person (upvotes), both are fine. None is theft.
When vote buying isn't profitable any more it will get less. It actually has already.
Thank you for your answer. We don't see eye to eye on this, but we agree on one thing: "When vote buying isn't profitable any more it will get less." So why not wait for that blessed day and bully people instead? In fact, vote buying was a valuable tool for visibility while it lasted, but it was never profitable.
A few bots at least even promised a certain profit. Maybe you used the wrong ones? :D
Downvotes are not bullying, they are the only way to cut into the profits of vote sellers, by taking away their curation rewards and their customers. It's not going against the person who buys directly, only against the act of buying.
I wouldn't know. I didn't use any bots. I bought votes from @smartmarket, and the supposed ROI never really worked out for a variety of reasons. For me, that isn't the issue. I want it for visibility. Anyway, @smartmarket is no different from any other automatic curation trail, with the exception that "money" changes hands. Behind it all is a large number of real people, most of them "little" folk. A whale downvote does damage to them as well as to me. How do they not have the right to use their vote as they see fit?
I reiterate, I never had a problem with organic downvotes because I strive to put out reasonably good content. What I object to is the bullying kind. That's just not how it's done, period. A minority in their teens kills the potential profits of a crowd of sometimes over 1,000 with their strong VP to bend them to their will. If that's not bullying, I don't know what is.
Everyone can use their up- and downvotes as they see fit.
Most downvotes go against voting behaviour which is against the best interest of the platform, and opposing to the value proposition as described in the whitepaper. Steem was created to crowdsource the best content, and negative voting is a part of it to explicitly be used against colluding groups and "defective voters". If selling votes isn't defective, I don't know what is.
You're beginning to sound like a cheerleader. "The best interest of the platform" is good content towards the top of the trending list. I like to think I provided that until some people saw fit to interfere with me. Even my shorter, newer, non-video posts aren't junk.
It doesn't work and it never will, as I explained earlier. People will always band together and scratch each others' backs regardless of skin quality. Trying to force what can't be will only serve to drive some of the best content creators away. Ask yourself why no star Youtubers are flocking to the Steem. There is your answer.
Agreed. But it is being used only against the little folk. The big fish are happily colluding like they always have. So that mechanism doesn't work either; it only creates unfairness and negativity. So why cheer for it?
Youtubers don't come because of the back scratching and the need to buy visibility, downvotes have nothing to do with it.
I came to steem because I liked the ideas described in the whitepaper, and I will do whatever I can to make them work. It's possible that it can't be, then we're all wasting our time. I'm not ready to give up yet though.
Slowwalker is far from a little fish, but our power is limited. One after the other, the system was broken a long time and people got used to it, it will take a long time to revert (if possible).
Downvotes are not used against colluding small fish, they go against the defective voters aka bots - it just happens that a lot of small users are their customers, but the size of the guy buying doesn't change anything, the downvotes hit all buyers.
You feel entitled to move your own content up to trending, but that's not how it should work. Everyone thinks their shit is the greatest. If you can't accept that and only can point to others doing wrong too instead of helping to do something against it, it's maybe really best to leave, because your entitlement won't stop us in our efforts to steer the ship around and you seem only to be dedicated to reinforce what's been going wrong all the time.
Funny you mention @slowwalker. I don't know what s/he supposedly did and I don't much care. I do know that I liked @slowwalker's latest post, that's all that matters to me. If s/he felt the need to boost that, so be it.
I don't feel entitled, I AM entitled to market myself however I see fit. That's EXACTLY how it should work, provided, everybody has the same opportunity to do so. Advertising is part of life. Not part of life is willfully destroying other people's marketing efforts. It simply isn't right. I grant you, the means provided to advertise as well as the means to keep it down are poorly developed on the Steem which is part of the problem.
Yes, and so do you, as evidenced by how you're fighting tooth and nails for your point of view. And not only is this O.K., I would think less of you if you didn't. Although I don't much agree with your opinions, I will cheer you on to put them in front of as many eyeballs as you can. But that's just me, I guess.
Isn't that what you're doing?
I haven't decided whether I will dedicate myself to it yet. That something is "going wrong" is a matter of opinion and mine happens to be different. So I certainly won't be helping on this path to make Steem "better." I liked it better before, for the most part.
Yes, that's one of the options I'm considering. I have always rejected the corporate meddling on platforms like Youtube, Facebook, etc. and was proud of producing videos exclusively for the Steem and not them. Thanks to the efforts of some people, those corps are beginning to look not half bad. I can't begin to describe to you how sad that makes me!
Did I say "cheerleader" before? Now it sounds more like zealot. I know from past experience that you're one of the good ones, but we have a saying in Germany: "Well intended is the opposite of well done." Perhaps you think about that a little, just in case you could be wrong. I know I will.
Anyway, I appreciate the exchange, but let's agree to disagree for today. Have a great day --- Folker
He doesn't boost his posts, he's the biggest part of one of the whale circles you supposedly despise so much.
When you don't agree with the whitepaper that's your thing. Blaming those who use a system in the way it was intended from the start seems a bit silly to me though. But whatever :D
Agreed in most cases
Posted using Partiko Android
Haha yeah I agree to 100% this is what I mentioned before in a lot of comments and some posts.
To be honest the free downvotes is another sword in the hands of the big ones becaues they get even more power from the normal SP to use for their little games the play normaly, there is no need to think about losing some curation rewards when taking the free downvotes now instead of the normal votes from the account.
And such guys are witnesses huuuuu verry bad, I have withdrawn my witnessvote to pharesim after the absurd downvote attack of @curangel against a vote on a comment at @justineh.
But hey, yes it isn´t against me personally one (curangel) was just of the opinion that vote was an overrating of the comment !
The little ones do not bother the dolphins and whales, and they (the big fish) do the same as before play their own game and claim they do it only for the community, hardly anyone opposes something like that, everywhere only cowards scared for their few cents.
Great outlook with #newsteem, well done steemit.inc, well done !
with sunny greetings from Andalucía
Don Thomas
Nice point! I am really confused with their power of downvoted your post..
!trdovoter 100
Congratulations @theguruasia, you are successfuly trended the post that shared by @pharesim!
@pharesim will receive 7.26897600 TRDO & @theguruasia will get 4.84598400 TRDO curation in 3 Days from Post Created Date!
"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
Sorry @theguruasia, you're not allowed to summon the bot on the non-listed tags!
Support @trendotoken projects by delegating : 100SP , 200SP , 500SP , 1000SP , 2000SP
So much negativity and one sided logic.
No depth at all.
You promote one sided view and promote idiotic market strategy without professional observation of the Coin market trends. Steem price is going down.
Let’s all work on positive solutions.
You misunderstood this post, it's absolutely positive :) Not for the people like you who don't get it, but it wasn't directed towards you anyway, so that doesn't matter.
Something just hit me. What is the moronic talk that Steem is going down after #newsteem? Here is a recent daily chart from Bianace. Steem/BTC hit a low of 0.00001549 on Aug 10, 2019. That's the reaction low. Prices have been very stable since then! Every time after that, when prices got to that level it was bought heavily. A picture is worth a lot more than many written words and mis-information.
PS. Up-voted for visibility
Congratulations @pharesim! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPVote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
I agree! I just used one to downvote this post since you like to flag my hard work and original content videos.
Thanks for confirming in writing that you vote for votes, not for the content, and that you're a prime example for why downvotes need to exist! :)
Congratulations @pharesim, your post successfully recieved 7.268976 TRDO from below listed TRENDO callers:
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
Only one common sense-downvoting
Mostly no common sense in your steem market logic
External analysts agree, their word counts a lot more for me than yours.
https://steemit.com/newsteem/@oliverschmid/pzcgor
I just read it
If you read further they disagree
"
"
https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/steem-price-analysis-engine-in-need-of-a-restart
How is that a disagreement? Did you get until the conclusion?
Overall yes, but specific statement of few abusing wealthy accounts to bully smaller members, read small print
That gives ugly picture for steemit
Nobody is bullied, there's only rewards being distributed which have been gained by collusion. They go back to all the small users not having big friends, and this has a positive effect. The people crying may give a bad impression to outsiders seeing it, but that's only the fault of them, we don't talk about war and stuff, that's not our intention at all.
If they would simply accept that other stakeholders are not agreeing with them being given rewards by their "friends", everything would be awesome.
@pharesim What you are doing is abuse of downvote steem power and curation based on your personal translation and rules of steemit downvote. It is also one version of blog spam with input of non foundational downvote on independent non related party based on your own statistics and formula.
Downvote is tool for your team and lobby to benefit in policy shifting and bending the rules in your lobby favour. This will damage quality work of many neutral parties in this downvote trend.
There are many better solutions than just this one.
Lets work on them together.
Please explain me the real definition of colluding groups and defective voters, you wise blacklisted spammer!
Make me see the benefits I have from engaging in this too, if you have time for it. So far it feels like I only lose money and nerves. But I'm sure you can enlighten me!
I lost money as investor too
I hope we are on the same side
Lets make steem strong again.
So far price is going up.
That is good news.
I am just an investor for now. I dont want to get in politics of steem.
You put me as your downvote target first.
You tell me.
So far I am not impressed with all of this.
As you can see I really try to enjoy my Art hobby I am trying as an amateur.
You do what you do. I can not tell you what to do.
From my point of view and your point of view we are not far off.
I will keep investing in steem. That makes me loyal to the same cause.
How may I help your mission besides downvoting.
I'm not talking about investment losses, I lose on possible gains every day by opening myself up to retaliation downvotes and running and delegating my stake to a project that's not mainly aiming to create profits for the delegators, but the big base of creators. I don't get paid for anything I do. And I don't care, because I only look at the big picture, not my own rewards. They're nothing compared to what I and everyone else here can gain when steem manages to give fair rewards to everyone, not only those with investor friends.
You are part of a colluding group that trades votes, and have been upvoted for spam copy & paste posts as a result of that. You know it, and everyone else does, because steemcleaners keeps showing it on everything you do. You are a fully valid target for downvotes by definition of the whitepaper, not my own.
And I explain again: not I choose who to downvote. That's up to the users, based on the whitepaper. There are many who don't like to see people voting each other only, and as long as you do that you will get downvotes from them.
That you keep complaining and calling people names instead of admitting you've been only looking for gains for yourself doesn't help at all.
I disagree with you here almost on all counts except one.
You are trying to help steem in your own way.
Maybe downvotes were good if the came from the community. But they come from a few guys with the most power.
Maybe steem was supposed to work like this. But it is not like a lot of people want it to work. This is not social-media but antisocial-media.
If there is one guy able to decide about all other peoples revenues there are much better options than steemit.
I also do not like that damn voting-bots but maybe it needs fundamental technical solution for optimization not a few guys playing sheriff.
A lot of people think about technical solutions, the options for that are limited.
I agree, overly big stakes deciding on rewards are an issue. That goes in both directions though. The bid bots wouldn't be possible without being delegated big stakes (or centralizing a lot of small ones under their roof) or having them themselves.
We are a difference in reward distributions now that the few people who want it to work can act accordingly. The hope is that the overall culture will change. That'll take a lot of time though, after years of fostering the culture that dominates.
unfortunately, its a popularity contest.
guaranteed if i had written this EXACT SAME ARTICLE, word for word, it'd be a 30c post and not a $33 one.
and if id used a bidbot to make it more visible, someone would get upset with that and flag it
shrug
True, and unfortunately not avoidable to a certain extent. Steem related content by witnesses and developers is hugely overvalued in relation to everything else, as is a lot of stuff by popular users.
Networking and being active to develop for/market/explain steem are still keys to high payouts for now.
Good thing I get so many retaliation downvotes, or it'd be $60+ ;)
I almost never use downvotes, maybe only twice since having an account at Steemit, and even then with reasons that can be accounted for because of the proven content of plagiarism.
Instead of thinking about a down vote where I also became a victim because my daughter's account value of reputation dropped dramatically, I would rather read an article about the value of votes that is more valuable than now. I am waiting for articles like that. Thanks so much @pharesim.
Good day, @pharesim. I'm not sure you remember me - we interacted, here, not too long ago, but I've been away for a bit. (I'm the Egyptian poet :)
Anyhow, wanted to pop in and say Hi; good to see you still here
_/|\_@pharesim
Thank you for your post. I haven't blogged anywhere else and this is my first venture into blogging and crypto.
I've looked into writing on other sites for a while now and Steemit seemed like the most interesting attempt at a first start. So far, I'm glad about the choice I made.
I don't have sufficient experience to argue for, or against, the downvoting scheme. I have to say, though, that I appreciate the conversation because there doesn't seem to be enough of its kind in the introduction portions of Steem. Specifically, while arguments against downvoting exist, I don't where I can find an official position on it.
I think it would be extremely helpful to new users like myself for a clear discussion on how up or down voting affects the system and why proper curation is necessary.
Have a great day.
@scholaris
Sorry for the late reply, but I just figured I might point you to the other posts I wrote 3-4 months ago, especially this one explains why downvotes are important in much detail.
@pharesim
No need to apologize. I appreciate the response. Thanks for directing me at the article.
I’m going on my second month now since I became active and started blogging. I’m just trying to get a good grip on everything.
I understand the perspective on voting in terms of content and curation now. You must be able to upvote for good and popular content while also being able to downvote for the opposite quality. Downvoting for abuse is also important.
These practices are akin to what I see IRL in Quality Assurance.
Thanks again for your response.
@scholaris