You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What NEEDS to change NOW in order for Steemit to Survive. (Partial Payout Declined Self-Voting)
Exactly, if it doesn't deserve your own upvote, then you shouldn't post that in the first place. :-)
Exactly, if it doesn't deserve your own upvote, then you shouldn't post that in the first place. :-)
😂 very good point @gtg Why post something that you don't believe be good content. Thing is a lot of people don't think its good content and just want the rewards... If you take some of the rewards out of it, as discussed with many, would be both negative and positive. True content quality control can't come from the one creating the content. At the same time this is negative in some respect that people with good content, don't get rewarded, even if they have invested real money. This can deter a lot of good people, no good return on investment will force some people to sell STEEM.. there are truly many ways this could go. I do feel giving back as much as you receive is a good start.
The most recent post by @berniesanders shows some of the abuse of delegated power being used for circle jerk upvotes... even in the comments they have vote trails with a zillion accounts upvoting them.
I read a while back that HF20 was going to address the added-value issue on new accounts to remove the incentive to create a million accounts just to drain the pool using the initial delegated SP we all get. Is that true? It seems like that would stop the wave of spam accounts coming on and starting up these vote circles.
I was also thinking that to find a middle ground on voting, maybe something along the lines of curbing (but not eliminating ) self voting will help. You can 100% upvote on your own posts (not comments) until you hit the "vote slider" threshold, then from that point on your self vote is curbed to 50%. Comments your own and others, all comments, have a max limit of 10 or 20%, something that puts comments in proportion to the author's main post content.
Sure you will have the vote trail armies on comments - BUT - it they are redistricted a lower % it becomes less worth the effort, and secondly - it makes it easier and less wasteful of vote power for those who try so hard to flag/downvote blatant spam posts to take down those accounts. (in theory)
Would anything like that help long term? or am I way off on it all?
You have some good thoughts and have obviously thought about this for some time so thank you for your input. Its definitely interesting concept but I'm just not sure complicating the voting system to this extreme would be beneficial to the community right now. Some have thought to just simply illuminate the self vote on comments all together which is simple enough. Use of voting power is another which Im sure I'm not the first to think up. Each self-vote would drain more Voting Power.. this however wouldn't lead to more votes for others but essentially less if the usr decided to self up vote anyway.
While I agree that it makes sense under the current system, this isn't really a working argument to keep it and it also doesn't adress any of the issues.
voturbate for the like of others, what's not to love.
While I agree with you @gtg, but perhaps there should be a self voting limit ($30 or so per post) once you reach certain amount of none delegated SP. For example, what's stopping Ned making a post every 5hrs and self voting for $500 each time?
Sake of the platform. Biggest stakeholders have most to lose, if they would be too greedy milking the reward pool, then their stake would lose its value.