You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Self-Voting: Scammy Behavior, Rational ROI, or Something Else?
This is a subject I haven't seen yet talked about in this, but it was always something I remember posting a lot about. A great example of how counterintuitive it is, is the fact that cutting the issuance rate of new steem from 100% per annum to 9%, and within 2 months the price rapidly climbed to a valuation that more accurately reflected the growth of the platform. What it shows is that it's not how big the rewards are, that matters so much, but rather, that people see a good reason to hold it. Too much going out to rewards erodes that.
On the contrary, the empirical data has shown that when all rewards are going to the same people (which is still inflation), with little for new users, the network stagnates. When new users are getting rewards, it grows. This can be seen quite clearly in @eroche's payout distribution posts.
Exactly, almost the rate does not matter, except for the fact that it keeps the selling pressure up as users cash out their rewards. This data you speak of it seems logical to me that we should not be letting them burn their votes without them mutually supporting each other, a la minnows unite and similar campaigns. Sure, I can see how the big accounts have resources to conceal their self-upvoting but this just confirms its illegitimacy, once it is discovered. It isn't that hard to do traffic analysis to discover where the money flows back via external cryptocurrencies either.
The mutual support of users is part of how the system grows more resilient. I just want to help the newbies avoid burning their votes not helping each other increase their visibility and that sense of comradeship that it produces, which is very positive for community building.