Proxy Announcement: Witness Voting - Please Vote For My Proxy
First of all, I want to point out that if you set me as a proxy, your witness votes will all be reset. If you have already voted for witnesses, even if it's just one, you will no longer vote for them directly if you set a proxy.
I just want to make sure nobody just tests this functionality only to find out they now have to turn it off and vote for all of their intended witnesses again.
What is a proxy anyway?
In this context, a proxy is a person who votes on behalf of another person. There are many reasons to use a proxy for witness voting. The most important reason is to delegate the job to someone who is more informed. But there are other utilities as well. It comes in handy when a person has multiple accounts.
What is the main issue?
In traditional voting, there's this thing called "one issue voters." That's where a person who votes evaluates each candidate on a single issue.
I'll just state that my "one issue" is: Keep STEEM POWER from being undermined. Or, to put it positively: Ensure STEEM POWER is valuable and influential.
I am not a "one issue voter" but if you are, that is one of my biggest reasons to vote for a given witness.
Another basis I use is: Pro Steemit, Inc. I don't mean that Steemit, Inc. supports them by voting for their witness. I also don't mean blindly supporting whatever Steemit, Inc. says. I just mean that Steemit, Inc. is moving in the right direction (generally) and I want witnesses who recognize that.
Non-issues
Some of things that I do not consider:
- Missed blocks - Specifically, I'm not using missed blocks as criteria like, "You miss one block, you're out." It's not even a tie-breaker.
- SBD Discount - This matters a little more, but it's still not enough to even represent a tie-breaker. If I am to consider a witness by SBD Discount, the main factor is that they have a policy and not so much what the policy is.
- Drama de jour - Involvement in the daily/weekly drama, insults, and banter. I don't care. It's not a direct factor.
Are "issues" a factor at all?
It could be asserted that witness shouldn't be involved in issues.
Witness currently provide seed nodes, sign blocks, and price feeds. For the most part, this is all witnesses currently do. If a witness is for or against the direction of the platform, there isn't anything they can realistically do. If a lone witness rejects a hardfork, it will still get adopted.
But I think we can make this a factor. At least, I hope we can.
What about side projects?
Witnesses used to have something of a mandate for side projects, before Hard Fork 16. But this mandate is less of an emphasis under the new economics. This does not diminish the value of those projects in any way. If anything, it shows the amount of sweat equity they are willing to pour into the platform.
But having active side projects is apparently less of a qualifier these days.
OK, @inertia, why do you vote for @[fill in the blank]?
I'll just go over each one based on the order I'm currently seeing on ~witnesses. I'm giving my rationale based on memory rather than researching what they stand for. For me, I think it's important to be able to know who I'm voting for just by looking at their name.
And if I get some facts wrong, I apologize, but this is my process. If I'm wrong, it's because that's the impression I have. And I think that's useful if I were to hold proxy votes.
Also if there's someone I should not be voting for, I want to at least document why I voted for them before I remove my vote.
- @abit - I have heard rumors of whitehats in the past with this witness and I am a big time supporter of authorized, informative whitehats. He is personally involved in building the #cn (Chinese) STEEM community.
- @jesta - Hugely important for bootstrapping the infrastructure, especially for developers. Designed a kickass blockchain explorer.
- @roelandp - I didn't go to STEEMfest, but I heard some great things. I'm most impressed by the number of great tools and enthusiasm from this witness.
- @roadscape - The
steemd.comguy. That's really all you need to know. - @gtg - I can't say enough good things about this witness. He's helping other witnesses get up and running. He's helping developers wrap their heads around the platform. And I heard that he's involved in the official node rollout.
- @charlieshrem - Haven't noticed much going on with this witness. I know he's famous and stuff.
- @pfunk - He's knowledgeable, well spoken, and reaches out to the community.
- @good-karma - Great app developer.
- @anyx - You want to get rid of plagiarism? Because this is how you get rid of plagiarism.
- @riverhead - Admin of steemit.chat or something.
- @smooth.witness - Not sure.
- @chainsquad.com - This is xeroc's witness. Need I say more?
- @pharesim - Direct. Opinionated. Knowledgable. Everything you need in a witness.
- @klye - Big cry baby. Very dedicated to the platform.
- @complexring - Not sure.
- @someguy123 - Deep into crypto and the infrastructure.
- @busy.witness - If you're into busy.org, this is their witness.
- @bacchist - Keen eye for detail in marketing and the platform.
- @bitcoiner - Creating great web tools and even interesting pull requests for steemit.com.
- @furion - The one behind SteemData and other great projects.
- @boatymcboatface - Just a TWAIN vote (The Witness with An Interesting Name). That's about all we really know.
- @picokernel - Probably knows more about blockchain technology than anyone else on this list.
- @fyrst-witness - Scary vikings are people too.
- @masteryoda - Software developer, great reports, not blogging lately.
- @proctologic - Mostly harmless.
- @teamsteem - Quiet but enthusiastic.
- @codydeeds - I voted for him because he was setting up his witness in SteemSpeak and needed some technical help.
- @bitcoinparadise - Very clever guy, also very well spoken.
In the past, my policy is to only vote for witnesses I've interacted with. But clearly, I haven't interacted with every single one of them. I still think it's a good policy to strive for.
I also went back and looked more closely at this list to see how up-to-date they are. Turns out I have a bit of work to do.
One thing you will notice from the above list is that I do not outline their specific stance on protecting the influence of STEEM POWER. That will take some actual research. This list is a starting point.
As I said, I wanted to document the current list so that we can look back and know why it changes.
How to set me as your witness proxy.
Browse to https://steemit.com/~witnesses and scroll to the very bottom. You can choose me as your proxy by typing inertia and clicking Set Proxy. Doing so authorizes that I may vote for witnesses on your behalf. Remember, this will reset your current witness selection.
Great post! This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, and what soooo many others need.
Thank you for the vote @inertia! I really appreciate your support and I love the fact that you see me as very enthusiasm. I'll hopefully began to post more soon or at least even more powerful posts.
I'd suggest @cervantes and @blocktrades.
No ty. I like curating my own witnesses. Very informative.
Yes, I hope more people will be thoughtful about who they vote for and even offer to proxy witness voting. It encourages more information and discussion.
an informed community is a great community.
Keep STEEM POWER from being undermined!
Does that constitute undermining steem power?
When I confronted him with that he has lied and said that he voted like that because he was out of voting power, I will link the comment where I confronted him with his antagonizing and purely gestural voting, while he holds a massive stake of steam so you can see if you want.
You can see above that there is nothing about his voting or that shows it was a lack of voting power, he voted for some with 0.03%, and in between for others regularly with 1.33% and always for the same people with more than a percent and others with less than half a percent or less than even a tenth of that a few times.
He also might be running the autoflag bots iflagtrash, blacklist and asshole. I suspect him of running those or some of those because I egged him on by saying he couldn't distance himself from iflagtrash with his gestural antagonistic voting.
He was dismissive to my concerns and mocked me, by voting for me after I pointed out that he just voted his comment by 10 cents while he said that this was about me not getting votes after which he tried to argue that I wasn't using my voting power, laughable as he dismissed my concerns and lied, so I taunted him even further by telling him that he better turn on iflagtrash to shut me up as he cannot dismiss or lie his way out of facts. I know that it's a stretch to say he is running those but, but my suspicion is based on the coincidence that happened after I egged him on there is prophetic.
Here is the context first. For 3+ hours before that confrontation, after being flagged for 2 days, all day, prior to that day by that bot with it's crazy steem power, I was removed from the list, for whatever reason, as I was never contacted as to why I was getting flagged to begin with.
So, mid conversation in my 3 hours of not being abused by I flag trash in two days, and after I taunted him with those remarks, I was getting flagged all over again, every single comment and even more prophetic right after I said you better turn on iflagtrash.
You can look at the blockchain data, it was almost couple weeks ago but you can easily find it through my account and correlate the time with his. From there you can see the week prior where he voted with those less than a percent for a couple days, claiming that it was because he had no steem power yet the same people would receive the same 1.33% or more and others would consistently receive not even half a percent or even a tenth of that.
If running an account with crazy steem like his and voting purely for antagonizing motives, as he was voting for 2 conflicting viewpoints and not even giving the comments any steem power, simply just gestural antagonizing voting, but he is prime suspect for running both blacklist and iflagtrash, and if that doesn't constitute undermining STEEM POWER both directly and second indirectly by driving people mad with his flagging bots, then I don't know what constitutes undermining SP.
No.
So in 2 minutes you read all of that and considered it not to mean undermining steem power?
Then could you please define what it means to undermine steem power?
Then I can understand and so can others, what it means to undermine steem power, as clearly I believe that holding a massive stake of steem and voting purely to antagonize people in a gestural manner while saying that he only votes with 1% for stuff he doesn't see, where that is a blatant lie:
then afterwards calling me trash by saying that
as he allocates a nice portion of the reward pool to his comment non-the-less..
besides adding the people flagged by blacklist to his list of people he won't vote for, clearly aligning and giving support to whoever runs blacklist as it remains a mystery still, and their extortion/blackmail scheme without revealing the motives behind any of the flags that numerous people were and can still be affected by, constitutes working both directly and through proxy to undermine Steem Power and the platform/community as a whole.
Voting is expressed by adding options to transactions and signing those transactions.
Users cannot undermine STEEM Power by signing transactions.
STEEM Power can only be undermined by changing consensus.
You cannot shoehorn your little dispute into this situation.
Does my "little dispute" fit into this then?
If it did, I would classify it under "non-essential." Which means I wouldn't mind if a witness had a position on it or not.
-nesting limit-
Blatant lies and being involved in issues is non-essential?
What does that mean exactly? How is it a position? Is it not a statement of fact.
He lied, supports blackmail/extortion directly and has used his voting power in disingenuous ways. Is that a position? Or you are arguing that if someone adopts such a position it's a non-essential? Is the witness not supposed to have integrity? Is not essential therefore to be credible, by your standard, to be a witness?
His little experiment, as I believe he was trying something and then reverted to his old way, is there on the blockchain to draw your own conclusions from, but as I see it by the content that he voted, is that he voted for two different and strongly opposing views and gave neither as much as a cent, which is antagonistic:
while he later boasted how much 1% from him means and having voted over 2k times not dropping below 80% voting power left in 24 hours while comparatively during that time of disingenuous 0.03% votes and odd 1.33% votes he hardly voted, and it's daring to argue it was automated as one can see the change in the voting percent, from .04% to .1% to .03% in between the regular 1.33%.