You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Really? No One? (Vote-Buying/Selling Debater Requested)
I have said it couple of times before on steemit. If steem team wants to kill bid bots, its really easy, kill delegation. That will also help steem price and manual curation.
Having said that, I am neither pro nor against. I think steemit will better without bots over long run, but they do help buy visibility if you can afford it.
I have also seen them used for promoting new projects so they are kind of used for advertising.
Also, @yabapmatt posted a post and was open to discussion on voting bots. https://steemit.com/steem/@yabapmatt/on-voting-bots
I guess you can still leave him a message. I am a noob but he is someone who matters in this platform.
I don't see how this method work, because whales would simply sell votes from accounts they loaded with STEEM power.
I think delegations are useful and that they have been - though rarely - used in productive ways.
I don't think that when you delegate to someone you should lose the curation rewards. This way, if the whales don't want to curate, they could just delegate to someone who is a good curator, and they will still have their wallets grow in value for doing nothing. That's the only incentive investors need.
Also, I have just checked out this link. After reading the first paragraph, I can see it is something I want to read in its entirety- after I take my dog out for a walk.
But, I want to say to you personally that this is not someone that matters in the community. Not anymore than you or I. It is simply a member of the community, like anyone else. I do not even know they're username, and I have been here quite a while, so even if you word it as "this is someone in community whose voice is valued" I think you would still be -half- wrong.
They are a level 66 and this often looks as though someone has been here a while, but I suspect given the nature of the post you showed me, that this 66 has been acquired through the purchasing of votes, and so it doesn't mean that anyone had any interest or places any value on what they have said here. It - if true - would simply mean that they value their own voice - or that they value the money they can pay to earn for writing.
You should think more of yourself. It only takes one person to get through to another. If you manage to talk an abuser out of abusing today, then tell me you do not matter.
I said he matters because he is a witness. I think very highly of myself in real world. To the level of being arrogant :) .
For the curation thing, i see everyone with 100 or more sp are now delegating. If delegation are stopped then minnows will atleast start curating.
I do love me a paradox. If you believe yourself to be arrogant, then that sounds like you think lowly of yourself, and that you're unworthy of the credit you often attribute to yourself.
You don't have to respond to that, I just found it an interesting comment and wanted to write that down because it's harder for me to forget things when I have written or typed them, and I feel I may revisit that observation in future.
What do you think of this approach to a fair voting system that I offered to the community over a year ago; and that of course no one listened to because it would actually work.
Remove all curation rewards.
Create a new portion of the site where one can select a tag (it is very important that it be one of a not so huge list of tags; perhaps 20 or less, and that these tags serve as primary tags on every post made on steemit) and then be shown a stream of random content with no indication of an authors username until a vote or flag has been placed.
When voting on this random content section of the platform, the curators will receive 50% rewards, as do the authors.
Any other votes that are cast anywhere else on the site , 50% would go to the author, but the other 50% would not go to the curators - for one shouldn't be rewarded for voting on their friends work - but would go back into the reward pool - or, it could go towards a secondary pot that is used to distribute funds to posts older than 7 days.
I wish someone would make a platform that operated in a way closer to this. Ironically, I would have made it myself by now if I had ignored all the bullshit on here and kept getting decent upvotes. But now, because I am the type to challenge the current way of doing things, and offer better ideas, I do not earn enough to realise the many ideas I have.
Let me give you a hint on that paradox. I am not a panda in real life. My online persona is different that my real life. I will post that in my introduction post which I plan to do in 15 days.
For the curation thing, the problem is not with the current logic. Current logic is fine but its set in stone. You can calculate everything down to last cent. How about it had a random multiplier. Bots won't be able to replicate that. Not huge but something that can sway curation by 10%. Also give priority to the number of views and comments and chain of comments. If a post is really good, it should have conversations. Like we are having now.
Steem had the objective of gamification of social media. That is going well but now everyone understands the rules too well. Shaking it up will make it interesting again.
Forgive me but I do not so easily trust over the internet, so for all I know, you truly are a panda are now trying to deceive me- which is exactly what a panda pretending to be a human would do in this situation, which is even more evidence that I don't think I should ignore so easily.
With that said, you have some great ideas for a panda. I can see how the multiplier angle could suppress abuse, but it might also turn this place into a casino.
I wish we would stop with the gamification, because it leads everyone to believe this is a game. It is what perpetuates this feeling of competition, and what makes us adversaries who are so easily able to steal from or make selfish decisions that hurt the rest of us. If we remove gamification, and remind people that life is not a game, perhaps then we will all remember that we're on the same side.
Thats hilarious.
My whole following (of 5 people) is built around dissecting and beating the system so I would hate for it to go. That's really the only reason I post here (except for the money of-course) because I like figuring out things. Competition is kind of unnecessary, because no one is putting their own money in. Everyone is getting paid from a reward pool. But perspective is hard thing to get right.