You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Moving to hive
That's such a bunch of bullshit and you know it. This is a single user being rewarded by anoter single user, this is not good for Steemit. None of his followers are buying steem, powering up or contributing in ANY meaningful way other than circlejerking him. We have plenty of users who earn great rewards here, but they're not rewarded by a SINGLE user and actually deserve them (the majority of the time).
I just followed you berniesanders. Thank you for addressing this issue so much. I don't fully understand the intricacies of the blockchain, and the measures people take on here to exploit the system, but I want to do my part to make this a an honest community with original material. I will study up on this and continue posting my original content. As far as I can conceptualize, the more honest people there are around here, the "problems" like this will work out with work from development, and serious users of the platform. Have a good day.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯That I can agree with, just doing what I think is right for Steem. Regardless of how many shills comment and flag, I get enough support on here and in private to continue doing what I'm doing.
I think steemit has become a window for the world of digital currency. flags are terrible for the user and may close the progress for one's future in this pursue. this is really not relevant for this platform.
Possibly right. there will need to be an alternative for content moderating I think.
Yes! I have no answers... and I have thought about it... all I know for sure is that the abuse of power by a very Tiny minority could destroy the platform. It's becomes a race to the bottom. The Haejin fans have even resorted to the same tactics. If it's not sorted I predict steemit will be overtaken by competitor and once that happens the head start the platform had will never be taken back.
Exactly.....steem and steemit has way more potential for massive growth than these flags
I’m not against what you’re doing. I’m just suggesting that it’s not something to get worked up over. I flagged him. It had no effect. Moving on.
@inertia. This is first time in history great wealth is created without committing a great crime. This the first time in my experience that a top notch analyst giving his knowledge openly and freely. Many people have benefited from it. But you don't like it, do you? What have you contributed today @berniesanders? You and your clowns should be ashame of yourself.
Yeah, the thing is, I care about the platform more than I care about some kind of made up social justice you're trying to invoke.
https://steemit.com/steem/@pawsdog/the-curious-case-of-the-errant-comma-haejin-berniesanders
Have you investigated this? Your followers keep quoting your original 6.x% figure which has never seemed to add up
Have a look at this instead:
https://steemit.com/steem/@inertia/re-tarquinmaine-re-inertia-re-tarquinmaine-re-inertia-re-berniesanders-join-me-in-flagging-haejin-46k-in-abuse-rewards-20171220t003236718z
Still averaging:
If you post 20 times a day and get 138 SBD each post, that's $27000 USD each day. Who cares if that's 6% or 0.6%? What blogger earns at a rate of $9 million USD each year?
Let's approach the question from another angle so that perhaps you can understand my perspective.
Let's leave aside the issue of what percentage of the reward pool someone gets. That gets into Tragedy of the Commons territory and I don't want to go there. Since you didn't bring it up yourself, we'll leave it aside.
Here's the deal – what difference to you is it if he manages to make $9 million USD a year? Leaving aside the rewards pool, like we said, why is it your business to decide how much someone else can take voluntarily from people who willingly offer material support?
I want you to think carefully about your answer and realize that you will be going into a dangerous space in so doing.
I have long said that "you should never build a weapon that you aren't willing to have used against yourself." That applies equally to weaponized arguments.
"I don't think he deserves that much," opens you to the counterargument that someone else might decide that you don't deserve any of what you're getting – and by your reasoning, they would be justified in making sure you didn't get it.
You have to avoid that argument. If that is your argument, if that is the feeling that you have in your heart of hearts, you are going to get screwed, blued, and tattooed in the long run. You have given "your enemies" (for lack of a better collective term) a stick to beat you with.
Now, you might have a reasonable argument if it was, "I don't believe he deserves the portion of the reward pool that he is entitled to by the number of upvotes that he's received." That's still a very dangerous weaponized argument to make, but it's one you could, in theory, justify with some effort. Again, it's a weapon that can be turned around and used against you and people with whom you agree with trivial effort. Effectively it boils down to, "I don't believe that the positive support of the people who like that content are as important as myself and the people who agree with me."
You can obviously see where that could be a problem in the long term, right?
Now, you might take the position that, by your measure, "he simply doesn't provide enough good to the community to have access to that much influence" – but this might be the most dangerous weaponized argument for yourself and those you support that could be put forward. It's terrible. It allows anyone with a subjective opinion about "what you accomplish" and more power than you to come along and shut you up, as long as the whim takes them for.
I'm having difficulty justifying your position in a rational manner, and I'd really like you to help me out.
It’s just price discovery. Show me any blogger in history of planet earth who earns $9 million USD yearly and we can have a rational discussion about it.
There are some professional journalists who make over $10 million US a year and blog – so that's not really a good differentiator. While I'm not particularly interested in his content and I think it's pretty low friction and mindless, I don't think it's my place to tell the people who want to support him how much they should want to support them or that they are desire to support him is somehow less important than my distaste for what he does.
If it were just price discovery, then you would be perfectly fine with a single big whale deciding to come out of torpor, see a thing that he likes, and decide that the price is simply too low and start rewarding it. That is, after all, what he acquired all of that SP for.
If we are to assume that Bernie has the right to do with his SP whatever he pleases, vast as that reservoir is, if we don't accept that others have the same choice and ability to choose, that makes us the hypocrites.
Is that the position you're comfortable with? Because I am definitely not comfortable with that position.
Ultimately, this is coming down to one guy with a lot of money telling me that some other guy with a lot of money shouldn't get to do what he wants to do with his pile of cash for "moral reasons", while materially gaining at a level that I, personally, will never, ever see from the suppression of the second guy.
And somehow we get caught up in the middle of all that.
The reason we get caught up in the middle of all that is that it makes starkly clear that it doesn't matter what kind of content you create or how many people are in support of you making it – all it takes is one person more powerful than you to doesn't like it and you're gone.
For a lot of people who talk a big line about freedom of speech, freedom of commerce, freedom from censorship and oppression – that should really bother them.
So we are back to my original question, how do we justify your position in a rational manner that doesn't weaponized the argument to be used against you and people that you agree with? Is it even possible? Is it inherently self-destructive to hold your position?
I don't see the contradiction. I have always maintained that they can do whatever they want with their stake. When we find equilibrium, we will know the correct price. I don't get your objection.
Who? Let's compare/contrast if we're getting what we're paying for here. I maintain it's big fat no.
@berniesanders. This is first time in history great wealth is created without committing a great crime. This the first time in my experience that a top notch analyst giving his knowledge openly and freely. Many people have benefited from it. But you don't like it, do you? What have you contributed today @berniesanders? You and your clowns should be ashame of yourself.
@berniesanders Just wondering why is it that you keep pointing out that @haejin is being rewarded by a single user? If that user believes in what is being posted, I do not see where the problem is. Personally I feel that is each users right to vote on what type of content that they would like to see more of and use their steem power how they see fit. If you had a millionaire promoting your content would you be complaining? Are @haejin's rewards destroying the economy on steemit? We (T.B.L) are new here so if there is something that we are missing then by all means, please explain but I would think that if you reap in a lot of $$$ on the steemit platform then more power to you. Thank you for taking the time to read this reply by the way. ^ ^
The reward pool is split by all steemians according to upvotes they receive. If a single user pulls in a disproportionate amount of the rewards pool, they do so at the others' expense. They are taking a bigger piece of the pie. So to answer you question, yes, it affects the economy here. That is why everybody has some say in how big that pie is. That is why flagging a post because you don't feel the rewards earned are justified is not only allowed, but encouraged. It is the decentralized method for protecting the reward pool from abuse or misuse.
The single user mentioned, @ranchorelaxo, is a bit of an enigma. His upvotes are worth over $300 each. He upvoted 37 times, 36 of which were for haejin or himself. Here are some facts I found on him:
-rancho showed up here about 10 months ago and laid mostly dormant.
-7 months ago started buying massive amounts of steem
-@ned reached out to him around this time asking him to "ping" him on steemit.chat
-2 months later, @theprophet0 reached out again asking him to ping him on Steemit.chat
-15 days ago, he started upvoting @haejin's posts eventually to the tune of 10,775.09
-he also upvoted himself 3 times for like $1000.
-he also upvoted one other person for $10.
-Note the numbers above changed during my analysis (going lower) I'm not sure if that was due to downvotes or changes in the price of steem. I was using steemit more info chrome plugin for the data.
-@haejin reached out to rancho when the upvotes started with the following: "I am very grateful for your upVote! Thank You! If you'd like a crypto analyzed, please don't hesitate to let me know!"
-@Ranchorelaxo has no other interactions that I saw other than a single comment ("great post") on a post that he didn't upvote.
To many steemians, this seems very suspect. Haejin for his part claims to be rich, so if that is true, it's possible he made another account to upvote his own posts in order to gain more visibility and a bigger piece of the reward pool. This is far from proven. Nonetheless, if action hadn't been taken, haejin was on track to profit $2 million dollars in the next 52 weeks from the reward pool. Granted, that is based on numbers from a single weeks sample at the current SBD and Steem prices (which he predicts to rise substantially).
Thank you for explaining that in full detail. This may be like our 9th day actually being active on this account but it all makes a lot of sense when you put it that way and yes something about that does seem very suspect especially if that means that I am working hard and someone is sticking their hand inside of my cookie jar. I have to be quite honest I kind of got a little upset there and explained it to my partner on here because I myself am an Ethereum miner and if someone found a way to con 6% of the block reward I would honestly be pissed. I'm still new here so given all the details I agree that it sounds EXTREMELY suspicious but also I do believe he earns some (not all) of it so how to tell which is which because this seems to be a bit of a pickle. Wow you explained that well.. I upvoted for what it's worth and to be honest I can see why you are upset about it because I think I may be a little uneasy about it as well now. If I understand this correctly... "He is getting a HUGE chunk of all of OUR money that we earn in the rewards but he is not earning it rather he may be con'ing most of it away in a loophole that he found?"
Well, he may not be earning. I am trying to come at this as objective as I can be, but as a steemian, I do have skin in the game (we all do). @themarkymark pointed out that while I thought I had 15 days worth of upvoting data for rancho, it was actually more like 3.5. So in 3.5 days, he spent 11k of the reward pool for the most part on one individual. If that trend had continued, he would have taken over 1,147,142 from the reward pool over the course of a year. That is not considering compounding and growing of his SP and what he would have done with those funds. That also is not taking into account the market value of those proceeds which I would estimate to be over 5 million. That is also in addition to what he is already taking in which is a sizable chunk and probably over a million market value in and of itself.
The thing that frustrates me the most is that he (haejin) doesn't seem to debate this thing head on. If it were me, I would be on every one of these threads. If I wasn't associated with rancho, I would offer to give back all of the money from rancho's upvotes. I would decline payment. He himself says he doesn't need the money and only wants the exposure. He could decline payout and still trend.
Thanks for the detailed explanation brother @moeknows
My suggestion is that you follow Haejin and Bernie Sanders and after a couple of weeks you will then know first hand how the ground lies.
I am not concerned with a bernie vs haejin contest. I am concerned that so many people refuse to even acknowledge the rancho situation and why it is a cause for concern. If you have a problem with the rewards Bernie receives for his posts, you can downvote him, and I will support your right to do so. Many people have already done that here on Steemit resulting in his current rep. Many of the same people take issue with a whale potentially rewarding haejin with $3000 dollars daily from the reward pool. Now, that doesn't seem to be happening anymore, and I'm glad about that. How do you feel about it.
I disagree with all flagging and all downvoting.... unless there is a very very good reason. These words im wrong will no doubt get downvoted. Do you agree with that? Do you think a service like Randowhale should be used to censor? I've watched Haejins posts since the early days. He has one amazing day - I know as it jumped out at me - and I counted his rewards. It was abour $1500 if I remember correctly. He was immediately savaged by B.S. it also seems B.S's data was wrong. The irony is that he earns more in some posts. Live and let live. Just bite positively for what you like. The good will float to the top.
Haejin was gifted with nearly 11K worth of upvotes in about 3.5 days over 33 posts from a single user. I believe a dispute over the amount of rewards to be a very good reason. I don't agree that your post should be downvoted for simply disagreeing with someone. Now, I would be fine with someone downvoting your comment with the belief that it isn't worth the .52 that you self-voted, but I don't think it should be made to disappear unless you use offensive language that a sufficient number of the community has requested be minimized.
Go to steemworld.org/@haejin and refresh the coming author rewards section. He is still scheduled to make $ 6,667.46 in the next 7 days. worth a market value of 27,353.15. While you're there, take a look at the downvotes he is receiving vs the upvotes he is getting.
To address your last statement, I pretty much do that and have not downvoted haejin, but if he is taking a big piece of the pie,he does so at the expense of everybody else. If his pie is voted on by many different users, I don't see much of an issue with that. If it is because of a single user, that deserves attention.
They didn't find a way to earn 6%. He had one good day when he earnt 0.6% but someone doctored the numbers. He worked hard for months helping people for free (yes free 30 min consulatations!) and finally had a great day when one whale awarded him for the good work.
52 weeks? My estimate he would been 150-200k/week if it was a full 7 days of upvotes and not just 2 days which the 56k figure was based on.
I based my figure off of steemworld.org.
You had visibility into this situation before I did and as I mentioned in my post, the numbers were going down as I was analyzing ranchos activities. The number on steemworld was based on his coming author rewards and the estimated cash value it puts out. Currently, those numbers would have haejin making $4975 in SP/SBD rewards which is estimated to be worth $26,865. That multiplied by 52 would be about 1.4 million.
These numbers would reflect the ongoing efforts to change his rewards. So it would have been higher, but I had no first hand data to do that analysis. I'm still kinda a steemit noob.
At the time, Rancho only had two days of votes and that was a 7 day estimate. So a full 7 days of votes would be much higher
There were 15 days that I saw.
Unless my steemit more info plugin was failing me.
ok, I see what you're saying. I had 15 days of voting data, but he really only had 3.5-4 days of upvoting all of @haejins posts. So yeah, the 11K number would have been much much higher potentially.
so all that drama because of two days voting!
@themarkymark
That blows my mind.
Those 2 days equated to over $50,000 USD.
What are you saying exactly with that statement @themarkymark ?
that @ranchorelaxo actually made up votes of $50,000.00 USD
i have been looking at the account very closely. The account is there for a reason but its not there for the purpose of money making. That much is a certainty
Thanks for the summary of the goings on and your efforts in collating the information you have provided @moeknows.
You're welcome. I also have the following which is more subjective in nature:
Other findings
-@haejin's content seems legit, but some posts are low in content containing only a couple of charts and a sentence.
-he was very successful and had many followers long before rancho came around
-many of his supporters seem to have came here for him or because of him
-many of his supporters have no idea who rancho is (or that he was giving haejin 11k in upvote) and think this campaign is about his success due to their upvotes.
-@haejin doesn't seem to ever mention @ranchorelaxo by name to his followers, and I haven't heard him directly address the accusation that he was colluding. (He does mention that he is accused of having multiple bots and denies it)
-I don't think haejin has directly addressed bernie or any of the groups here on steemit in a dialog (I could be wrong), but he does mention the attack during the last 4 or 5 minutes of his youtube videos starting on 20 Dec.
Haejin has bots? Crazy allegation! He works flat out on TA ans some people find his short direct of the moment posts incredibly useful. BS aka randowhale has 60 bots he uses. A little research will show you... but you will need to click on them to reveal content as theyve been censored by yours truely BS
Did I say he has bots? I think you may have misread my post. I said that haejin himself mentions allegations, but I have not. The conduct of Bernie is not really relevant to this conversation, but I am aware of his bots, as is the general steemit community. How do you think he got a negative rep? That being said, the haejin/rancho situation deserves attention. What is your take on it?
Sorry! Got the wrong end of the stick there. Re: Haejin Rancho I don't see the issue at all. Randowhale upvotes hisnown posts to value of $100 or more. I have an sceen shot that I posted burn of course Randowhale censored it. As far as I believe Rancho is an independent whale, but if he isn't, so what? BS runs 60 or so fake accounts aka bots. My issue is not with Randowhale biting fie himself (though I think it's by dishonest to the people that have paid him) but it's the negative voting I have issue with. Randowhale xouldnahve simply used his voting power uplift 100's of minnows of posts he thought were worthy. ITN would have had sameness effect on the reward pool bur has positive results. I.e. 100's of motivate minnows
I disagree with bernie's self-voting and really self voting in general. I also disagree with his using his power to downvote people he doesn't agree with. Now that we got that out of the way.
Rancho can do what he wants, but the community has a bit of a responsibility to correct his efforts if they don't believe in the worth of those posts. Otherwise, one whale could simply by the whole pot and kill steemit. I don't believe that haejin should be downvoted to 0, but honestly, he's doing pretty well.
The only problem i would have with thinking that the @Ranchorelaxo account being owned by @haejin is that the voting pattern of @haejin is as followes:
He up votes himself quite a lot and does not waste his votes. Plus he has been striking out with down votes to people like @littleboy.
on the other hand the @Ranchorelaxo account has been dormant for a couple or three days. The owner of this account does not prioritize money making
It seems more likely that it is owned by a mischievous whale : )
Let me know what you think
I believe the behaviors you mentioned are in response to the effort to downvote. It's possible that rancho is just some steem noob millionaire that likes haejin and didn't know that his upvotes would be a detriment to the rest of the community. I don't know, and we haven't really heard from either one of them in terms of dialog. I do know that I'm glad it's stopped. Haejin was posting about 8-9 times a day. So if rancho had just continued to upvote only him, it could have pulled about $3000 daily from the reward pool.
Better Distribution of the Reward Pool must certainly be looked into.
The Sooner the better. !!!
Dear shimenzi! Here I sit and watch the so-called war between @haejin and @berniesanders. What do you do nothing? Apparently Yes. We in Russia say-" when a dog has nothing to do, she licks balls". Kindergarten-honestly. Like children in a sandbox. Men enough shit to deal with. Better to be engaged in useful Affairs. Make useful posts, not this nonsense, like one member longer. You're both good at it, don't layatsya. I hope You have it all worked out, huh ?
Why are you so envious?
@berniesanders This is first time in history great wealth is created without committing a great crime. This the first time in my experience that a top notch analyst giving his knowledge openly and freely. Many people have benefited from it. But you don't like it, do you? What have you contributed today @berniesanders? You and your clowns should be ashame of yourself.
But you do the same. I've seen you reward yourself $100 a post. You use your power to squash minnows free speech. You've deleted their other innocent posts that have nothing to do with you. Can you please let me know why you have done that? You censored a story I'd written about downvoting. Why have you done that? Why do you think you have the right to be a censor? Your reputation clearly lets you know the majority of the steemit community don't approve of your actions. Come on Mr Scrooge! Show some good seasonal good cheer and make up wit Haejin and call the war off. You might find you win many new fans.
Have you seen anyone reward themselves $100? Sure. But have you seen them reward themselves $100 for 20 posts daily?
I watched husband posts daily from when they were $3-$5. I can promise you it was only in the last 36 hours before BS's attack that he earnt mor Ethan $50 a post. Before that I was always amazed at how many people looked at his posts and how few voted. Jerry Banfield openly moved from one post a day to 3/5 a day and he asked the community for their opinion. I said I'd prefer one! He earns very well and also attracted hate attacks. To me this is fuelled by jealousy not reason.
Why We Should Thank Ned, Dan, Haejin & BernieSanders
https://steemit.com/steemit/@rockwellontherun/why-we-should-thank-ned-dan-haejin-and-berniesanders
@BernieSanders raped his cucumber too hard and now it's stuck up his anus and she is getting major butthurt!
Thankfully, @haejin told us to buy Verge Currency, which made us all rich!
Now butthurt @BernieSanders is miserable because she missed on the chalice of wealth!😂
Didn’t you get a 4,000% payday? Nice!