You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: This is it boys and girls
'Steal' is inflammatory and I would agree with that.
People can allocate 'their' share in a manner which benefits the individual with little to no benefits to Steem. Call it what you like, but it isn't good for Steem.
We really have no evidence of what is good or bad for Steem. There is a direct relationship to price and activity. Which came first the chicken or the egg.
I've seen no evidence on either side, just a lot of opinions... including my own.
If everyone just votes for their own self-enrichment, then Steem's rewarding function is pointless. People are just paying themselves with their own money.
If some people vote for self-enrichment then they are doing so at the expense of anyone who is gullible enough not to.
I happen to think that a major function of Steem being completely pointless or a way to gain personally at the expense of other stakeholders is bad for Steem.
Sure, this isn't entirely objective but it's somewhat close. The logic is solid.
The cases of those voting strictly for their own enrichment are few.
Other than that I agree.
My view is quite different. I see an enormous amount of it still going on every day (as a percentage of the reward pool at least, maybe not relative to raw vote count or post count). The situation is modestly improved since HF21, but not to the point of it being 'few'.
We can certainly respectfully disagree on this perhaps.
First you ridicule the notion of 'good or bad' for steem, then when cornered with the simple logic that supports the notion of something being good or bad for the community you try to recant and claim that the negative that you at first denied is now but marginal. I've heard the same bullshit from you from day one, always incapable or unwilling of grasping the simple logic and undeniable conclusion of "if everyone acted like a self voter" and even though I'm not sure you recognize that you are a serial apologist for abuse of Stake or you truly think that such Abuse is Impossible by some ownership or other such 'principle' yet I imagine it ought to be very confusing to make ends meet regardless of the narrative you hold since either there is such evidence or there isn't, no matter the quantity.
#no-evidence
#nothingtosee
We can have a good idea of what is good for Steem and what isn't, some of it is just common sense.
An account only votetrading and maximizing rewards while that's it's only focus which is now a reason 3 years later he gets 0 engagement on his low effort posts to even justify the rewards with that is surely not going to be good for Steem compared to someone with the opposite attributes.
Yeah, in that case I would agree. 3 years of posting and not having any engagement is something I would consider worthy of downvoting.
@me-tarzan
Just to be clear, the steal part was mainly aimed at users such as flysky who've attempted and for a long time (thanks to bid bots) managed to take a lot of rewards from the pool for whatever it was that steemcleaners is onto him along with his friend dobartim who've been running schemes on discord to trick newcomers and kick those asking too many questions once they got onto them. Taking a quick look at his "poetry" should tell you what kind of content they've vote-traded/bid botted up for ages to get their rep and are stubborn to keep the facade going for ulterior motives than the rewards from what it looks like as that's pretty clear by now they would make more by just curating than attempting to post garbage and get into downvote wars vs the whole community. The main reason I got involved and heard about them was because even when minnows were downvoting their garbage/plagiarism they'd go after them with pitchforks and there were some other users behaving the same after the hardfork: "downvote me and get hit back twice harder" was not something I thought to be acceptable when giving the EIP a try. Luckily most seemed to have understood their actions to have been "bad" and the consequences they faced not just by big accounts downvoting them for these main reasons but also stepping up and countering the malicious retaliatory downvotes but also on their rep and future on the chain. Now there's still a few left who are stubborn. I take it once the price of Steem starts increasing and the curation they're losing due to even using their upvote mana to downvote starts having real value they may backtrack.
The thing is though and what I was pointing out here in the thread is that this is pretty dirty work for those getting in the middle of it and attempting to put a stop to it if you aren't completely passive like someone like @trafalgar or you who just comments and doesn't care about them being downvoted or how it affects those replying to you. Even though these abusers may realize their fault along the way they'll still hold grudges over those that put an end to their ROI fest and might continue to downvote them forever or try hurt them in other ways such as going after all comments on those users posts (like it's happening to me and a few others now) as they have nothing left to lose. It's kind of a dead end now where the only option for them is to either change their ways and hope people notice it before they just automate counter all of their downvotes and dealing with it that way while they rot away in the "deep web" of Steem once communities and SMT's take over or they will power down onto new accounts and start fresh. The latter could be encouraged by bringing their reputations down to 0.