You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Response to @transisto's Open Letter

in #haejin7 years ago

On the contrary-- If I was a smart investor, I'd recognize that if it was possible to abuse the system in the way you are describing, I'd stay away. Things assigned value NEED to have proper value, otherwise something is wrong with the system. What does "proper" mean? Who knows, but what's obvious is when something has a ridiculous value assigned to it.

Look at the extreme: Let's do a little thought experiment: say there's no "police", and all these "smart investors" are very excited and pour tons of money into the system to upvote empty posts. Raking in the dough, at the expensve of everyone else. They are excited and call others to do the same. Soon everyone is selfvoting empty posts, and nothing else is happening on the platform. Do you still believe what you are saying about "everyone should try to get as many rewards as they can?". I'll tell you what will happen-- Someone is going to question the value of the platform, and the whole thing will tank. Well, it's looking like a fun scam at that point.

Long story short: corrective votes are necessary to the platform's survival, specifically to counter abuse. It may not be a perfect system, so I believe some adjustments are in order to the incentive structure. But until then... these flags are entirely necessary.

Sort:  

@eonwarped your comment inspired the below thought experiment. I'd be interested in your feedback.


"Well, ever since the bot takeover the entire nature of Steemit was radically altered. Hypothetically speaking, let's say you've got two people with the same amount of Steem power." [read on..]