Does anyone actually reading and voting on this believe this post is worth over $2500? Keep in mind, most of that value was added by Dan himself and his co-worker @val-a. Curious to hear what you all think? Does this deserve to be downvoted?
Does anyone actually reading and voting on this believe this post is worth over $2500? Keep in mind, most of that value was added by Dan himself and his co-worker @val-a. Curious to hear what you all think? Does this deserve to be downvoted?
No but more importantly the entire series (including the people-rank posts) isn't worth $12000 and most certainly does not add $12000 of value to the Steem ecosystem.
As I have said many times, founders posting platform updates (and let's be clear, Dan writing about his plans to redesign the Steem voting system is a platform update, whether he disguises it as political philosophy and claimed not to have been writing about Steem or not) getting high rewards is exploitative and impairs the ability of Steem to reward other users by depleting the reward pool.
At this point, most of the damage has already been done and this one post is just the icing on the cake. I am undecided whether or not I will be downvoting it closer to payout.
Oh, and those of you claiming that the post shouldn't be downvoted regardless of its value because it isn't plagiarism or spam clearly did not get much value from the post.
By downvote do you mean flag?
Yes. That's the only way to down-vote currently.
"downvote" a flag should be used for much more serious things on a platform advocating against censorship, although it is not censorship, it can quickly restrict users from seeing or wanting to engage with such content
That was my point. If they call it a downvote they shouldn't make it look like a little flag. We've all been on the Internet for a while now, a bit too late to retrain everyone on what a flag means.
While platform announcements / discussions should not be rewarded, there's value to their visibility. This series is certainly not worth $12,000, but it's important for the users of the platform to know what a co-founder is thinking about.
The simplest solution would be an "Announcement" tab where all voting is disabled. Another possible solution could be a way for low value posts to trend based on their importance rather than SBD generated. Reddit has the "controversial" algorithm which makes posts which have a strong mix between upvotes and downvotes. I suppose that makes sense - if something is so polarizing it's probably worth checking out. Similarly, perhaps an equal number of whales could come in and downvote these announcements, yet they would be visible on the trending page.
I agree and we have discussed precisely these issues for months. A feature to disable rewards on a post was added two months ago but is not being used.
There are many ways one can conceive of announcements and communications from the developers being made available to users without direct monetary rewards. Somehow virtually every other startup business and software project manages to do this and indeed I dare say that none would consider a founder drawing on a promotional fund to do so (for example entering these blog posts in a writing contest sponsored by the company for its users) to be appropriate.
Possibly. If you are an investor looking closely at the system, or if you happen to be interested in the theory and philosophy of voting systems, they you might find this series interesting and vaguely relevant. But merely as a 'user' of the system, you are probably a blogger putting up your recipes, photographs, makeup videos, art, restaurant reviews, opinions about the direction of the economy, etc. in the hopes that you get support from your followers and may or may not get rewards. In that case, you probably neither find a lot of value here nor are likely to even read or understand most of it. (Several people have explicitly commented on voting despite not reading it and others clearly, from the content of their remarks, have not read and understood it.)
There is a place for everything. High in trending with rewards draining the pool day after day is not it.
Interesting - so the feature to disable rewards already exists.
You are right - this series in particular will not interest most people on Steemit. Those who are involved closely would be following Dan anyway, the post need not trend at all.
However, broad announcements do need to be visible. Major new features, significant changes in reward algorithms, etc. Those are relevant to everyone using the platform.
@smooth That's definitely a good point and is even separate from the problem with people being able to self-upvote.
I think the question you are really asking is:
I think it is clear you do not think so and I would be in agreement - it could be seen as another form of kickback and be used as ammunition by the "Steemit is a scam" crowd of people.
Obviously if @dantheman wants to post articles as a blogger on here there is nothing stopping him (nor is there anything wrong with that) but it might also make sense if official announcements are made on a separate channel to disentangle the two.
That would also remove any conflict of interest and keep his views separate from those of Steemit as a company. It might not seem important now but it will be in the future when this is a much bigger company and has the eyes of the world and the media upon it.
I'm actually really glad we are having these discussions. We may not agree on everything but we all care about the future of Steemit and by working together we can ensure that it has the best possible chance to succeed.
I mostly agree and I have never downvoted his 'blogger' posts, though it isn't impossible in theory that those too could be abusively and excessively voted especially if he and his co-workers and friends are voting for them.
However, a lot of times the 'blogging' veers into areas that are inextricably tied up with his official duties as the Steem lead developer. If he is blogging about divorce that is one thing, but blogging about blockchains and voting systems is another very different thing. The latter, especially, should not put him in a position of personally enriching himself by using his position to compete for rewards with the very users the system is trying to attract.
Perhaps he should create a normal "blogger" account without all the steempower? It would allow him to have the same level of "voice" as other bloggers without the payout distortion.
@smooth That's why I think the self upvoting should be removed and the official announcements and personal accounts should be entirely separate for Dan.
Then there will be no confusion and no possibility of "self-enrichement" as you call it (which is a better term than kickbacks lol).
So both problems would be solved and it is a pretty easy solution.
@thecryptofiend it seems to me like all that would accomplish is allowing site admins like dan and others to upvote their personal posts with their "official" accounts and their official posts with their personal accounts.
@dantheman, for example, isn't even dans biggest account, voting power wise. And i suspect that nearly every big whale has a similarly large proxy account.
I agree with@thecryptofiend, down voting should be removed to avoid an unfair advantage to large players voting for themselves and inflating unnecessarily steem dollars. There is no information value in seeing someone's upvoting it's own posts, in my view.
Well said. Platform announcements, solicitation for community feedback regarding the platform really should be reward free. Personal blogs I won't weigh in on... but you make a great point.
Sorry @smooth if I sent you a message about a woman that needs help. Just couldn't help it.
I must disagree. @dantheman is abiding by the protocol of the blockchain. You seem to want to create arbitrary political rules that aren't enforced by the blockchain. You are free to turn Steem into a political clusterfuck if you want. I certainly won't complain :D
What about all other posts in the meta category: posts about new features in the GUI, new third party tools, explanations how bots work, presentations on Steem statistics etc? If you think the devs should not be allowed to earn anything from "posting platform updates", then, if we want to stay consistent, all other similar posts by other people should also be treated in a similar way.
I find @dan's posts quite useful. Most of them are not pure announcements - they give me a valuable insight about @dan's motivations, explain the whole context, and explain what problems he identified and why he had to reject alternative solutions. If they were pure announcements, then yes, they don't deserve much payout. But these are not just "platform updates".
So, you think a few short posts about how voting philosophy is informing evolving designs for the Steem platform are a good use of $12000 from the reward pool, as opposed to, say, rewarding 120 good-but-currently-unrewarded posts $100 each? You are entitled to that view, but I respectfully disagree.
We must admit that almost all financial rewards here in Steem are disconnected from the "real world" value. Yes, $12000 is well overpriced if we compare it to the outside world prices, but so are many other posts and comments, including mine.
I think it will be very difficult to draw a line between platform update announcements and educational blog posts describing somebody's thought process. For me, @dan's posts fall more or less half way between those two extremes.
@berniesanders - Interesting question but I think most people in the community are in consensus over the fact that flagging a post because you think it is overvalued is wrong. Value is by it's very nature subjective.
Whilst I respect all you have done for the community - I believe it is up to the market to decide what the value of a post is by voting for it. If the flag was still a downvote then it might be acceptable.
The downvote option no longer exists though and was changed to a flag for that very reason.
You flag posts that plagiarise, rip off or are otherwise abusive (not because you disagree with them or you don't value them).
However you do bring up an important point though. Whales up-voting their posts are in effect giving themselves a huge payout which attracts many other voters hoping for curation rewards and a piece of the pie. Even if the rewards aren't that large it doesn't matter.
Most people haven't read the white paper or other material relating to how voting works and they never will. They see a large amount of money and a whale's name and they automatically vote on it hoping for a piece of the pie.
Not only that but I'm sure you aren't the only one who feels that there is a certain dubious morality to that concept - it's like paying yourself kickbacks. Whilst a minnow giving a self vote is a tiny drop in the ocean, a whale doing that can pay themselves more money in one go that an average minnow would make from a thousand posts.
In view of this, perhaps self-upvoing should be removed altogether. It won't completely solve these problems but it will show us the truer value of the post to the community.
I think that would be a better solution all-round but that's just my opinion. I would be interested to hear what the rest of the community think.
I strongly support the idea of removing self upvoting. I've never really understood why that's allowed in the first place, seems like there would be a lot of temptation to abuse it for anyone whose vote is worth a decent amount. Even though my vote is not worth hardly anything, I would still feel a bit guilty voting for myself.
I agree with you but it's impossible to enforce, as you can have two accounts and use one to post and the other to upvote the first.
That's true, but for the second account's vote to mean anything you'll need to invest time and money building up the voting power of that account. If you have 10 alt accounts that combined only give you $0.01 of votes, then why bother?
I support not being able to vote on myself.
Vanessa Marcotte Princeton, Evil Murder Rev 911 WW3 Illuminati Freemason SYmbolism
https://steemit.com/illuminati/@cryptocurrency1/vanessa-marcotte-princeton-evil-murder-rev-911-ww3-illuminati-freemason-symbolism
@cryptocurrency1 Why are you spamming your link in this discussion?
Well said:
I've been saying this same thing. Code is law and the code most people who use Steemit.com are exposed to is the Steemit.com interface. Not only is it a flag, it was deliberately changed from a downvote to a flag. That implies intent and from a teleology philosophical argument, the "flag" means it should be for abuse only, not a downvote for subjective reasons.
Having said all that, Dan makes some good arguments here and if more "downvoting" is needed to keep things in balance, can I ask, why was it changed to a flag? If the whales keep talking about it like a downvote, and they have the most to lose if this system goes belly up, and Dan is right that negative voting is needed, then why haven't they campaigned to change the interface back to a downvote?
An alternative option is to fork Steemit.com and provide an interface that does downvote and doesn't censor content in the same way a flag does by a high reputation, high Steem Power user on Steemit.com. That, to me, would make everyone happy. They could use the interface that fits with their personal views on flagging vs. downvoting.
Let's put aside the issue of "downvote" vs. "flag" for the moment. Even though I don't entirely agree with your statements, in part because I don't always use the steemit.com interface, I will grant that flagging implies abuse. The point is still that abuse is subjective and excessive upvoting (including but not limited to by the poster himself and another close associate whale) can very well be a form of abuse.
Historically, the reason for the change to the icon was to discourage downvoting just because you don't like a post. For example, if someone posts a song, some people like it, the reward is not excessive, but you happen not to like it, the intent is to discourage you from frivolously downvoting.
This is very different from downvoting based on seeing excessive rewards as a form of abuse. Let me be clear: I happen to like this post and found it interesting. I didn't flag/downvote it based on like/dislike (if given a like/dislike button that didn't affect rewards, I would click like), but based on my subjective view that excessively rewarding these posts constitutes a form of abuse.
@lukestokes
I can't speak for others but 100% of the time I post a comment when I downvote for any reason (and sometimes to state a reason when upvoting if I have a reason worth noting other than "I like it and want to see it rewarded"). Obviously we can't force everyone to do that, but I definitely encourage it.
Reading through the various posts I've seen here regarding etiquette, it's hard for me to put aside the "downvote" vs. "flag" issue because, to me, it's the crux of the confusion as more and more people describe what the flag is for (preventing abuse). I get that a minority of people use other interfaces for the Steem blockchain, but I think it's safe to argue most use Steemit.com which does make a distinction between a downvote and a flag.
I guess, for me, it's hard to agree with all abuse being subjective (I'm coming from Sam Harris' Moral Landscape perspective), because some things the community, as a strong majority, does come to agreement on, such as frivolously downvoting being a detrimental activity for the network.
I agree with you, excessive upvoting can be seen as a form of abuse, especially by the very small minority which currently have such a huge influence over total payouts. Currently the interface provides no simple mechanism for: "I like the post, but feel the payout is excessive, so I'm going to vote against it using my own influence to bring the payout down, thus leaving more payouts for others." If the flag had a "reason" option which included some text (it could even just auto-post a comment to that effect if we didn't want to change the blockchain structure for the new meta data about the flag), then I think it would solve so much confusion here. It would even still follow the "abuse prevention" intent a flag implies.
Self voting should be removed, but also what if vote value was related to how close two users are to eachother in reputation?
What if two large whales, that use the website every single day, don't have as much value towards one another and more power towards newer more unique users and posts, allowing things to balance out more.
That's a fantastic idea. I'm not sure how easily it could be implemented but some sort of weight to reduce the effect of nepotism makes sense.
It is impossible to have a game theory discussion with n00bs. I am getting exhausted repeating some points over and over and over again.
You can't remove the ability to upvote yourself, because you can't prevent people from creating and funding other accounts to vote from.
A lot of things can be gamed. That is not a reason to facilitate them. Sure people can make multiple accounts to upvote themselves but without significant SP it really doesn't matter very much.
The discussion was about whales self-upvoting their own posts. If a minnow creates multiple accounts to self upvote it won't have any noticeable effect unless they put significant SP into each one.
Due to the way powering down works it isn't really very feasible for a whale to split up their SP amongst lots of accounts unless they want to spend a long time doing it.
Again I will just waste my time if I try to communicate with n00bs about programming and game theory level logic.
The whale can create a new account and upvote that from his whale sized SP. That doesn't take a long time. He doesn't need to transfer the SP.
"Again I will just waste my time if I try to communicate with n00bs about programming and game theory level logic."
Yes you will be wasting your time. If what you say is possible then the system is broken and needs to be fixed.
It is also quite funny that you take the time to respond but can't be "bothered" to give an explanation. Not only is your tone highly insulting but I suspect you are incapable of actually explaining yourself.
I was following you but your attitude has shown me that was a mistake.
I see no such consensus. I see a very few vocal people saying that its against the rules to vote that way, even one thats gone so far as to make up a set of rules as to how others are allowed to vote completley out of the blue. but no actual written down rules that say so. Allowing someone to "vote" then setting rules as to how they are allowed to vote is base hypocrisy.
any of these vocal people have significant financial incentive for this position. And the main justification for this position is that some central authority decided to change the "downvote" button to a flag button.
If value is subjective, why allow only only the votes that agree with your subjective opinion?
Well maybe you should look around a little more then?
I do see it because I spend a lot of time on here and in the chat and I have come across very few people espousing your opinion except for the odd whale.
If a poll is done and shows otherwise then fair enough - I will admit to being wrong but until then I will choose to believe my own subjective experience over your subjective opinion.
Also it is no longer called downvoting it is called flagging now and it was changed for a reason i.e. to make it clear that it is not a downvote used to show your displeasure in a post.
If you have a problem with that take it up with @dantheman and the rest of the team. Despite what you say about voting having no rules it most definitely does and they are the ones that set them.
Encouraging flagging for posts that people think have earned "too much" just makes it too easy for envy to come into the situation. Do I need to repeat the crab story from the whitepaper?
its still called downvoting on the blockchain, which is what ill continue to call it. Changing the interface in an attempt to change peoples voting behavior (which is what was done) is dishonest. Its like fixing the ballot so people don't vote for someone you don't like.
Just the number of downvotes on some of the worst posts (which are also some of the highest paid) shows that the consensus you imagine is just that, a consensus you imagine. Let me guess, all these people downvoting don't count, because they're envious jealous crabs who are just looking to destroy the system.
You seem to think its envy and the crab in the bucket. I disagree. I think its a lot of people who don't want to see insipid ,low quality material get paid tens of thousands of dollars while 99 % of posts get nothing or near nothing. I can't say as I see that as an unreasonable position. An ad-hominem attack against the people taking it doesn't change that. I may have crabs, but i am not a crab. Just someone who doesnt want to see steem worth 75 cents by labor day.
I often vote via the CLI or API in which case I'm specifying my vote using a number between -100 and 100. There is no label or name attached to any of these values; the only meaning is the effect it has on the mathematical formulas that make up the protocol.
In other words, I agree with @sigmajin
it is only logical to remove upvote on one's post especially concerning rewards, or in this case considered as "kickback". only whales and the lesser gods will be able to benefit from this option.
"I believe it is up to the market to decide"
There is no market if posts can't be down voted, or 'shorted'... and users who down vote posts that the market decides are overvalued should be compensated for it.
I just feel better that @berniesanders is questioning the value of @dan's post AND I see even @dan has 6 flags on his own post. This shows me that I was not specifically being targetted and that anyone could be a potential target if certain people find their post is not of value. Dan's post also allows me to better understand what all is involved in the process. I upvoted this post because I found the content valuable and the corresponding conversations just as valuable. I even upvoted @berniesander's comment. :)
People flag sometimes because they are jealous a post is making a lot of money.
You were never specifically targeted, although I understand how a relative newcomer might not appreciate the entire context of Steemit voting and flagging and could be offended. This is something we should try to be more aware of in the future.
If anyone has a personal problem with someone, the chat room should allow them to hash it out. With this big a community, we are going to have different beliefs and each come from different backgrounds and upbringings. To some people $5 is a lot and to some they could light a cigar with that and barely notice.
But I do think that if you are going to flag/downvote you should give a reason why. I feel that people who downvote with no reason are hurting the platform just as much because they are not providing any context as to why they did what they did.
I respect @berniesanders for letting you know why he downvoted the post he did. As a newer user could he have given you a little slack? Absolutely, but he saw what was repetitive content as decided to put an end to that trend. I doubt you had any idea what was covered before, but it also made you learn quickly about making creative content and moving on.
That you two don't hold animosity towards one another is a great thing that many people aren't mature enough to do. If it were facebook and someone were to "dislike" your status update, you probably wouldn't go through all their updates and dislike them all (if that were a thing) yet that does happen here, because money is a big motivator for many.
We as a community are doing a pretty good job being considerate to others regardless of their opinions. I wouldn't have believed you if you would have told me there was a place without any real presence of trolls where people could self police and money would be rewarded based on content, I would have laughed. It just didn't seem possible. So I think it is on each of us to do our part and try to keep steemit on pace to get larger and more successful.
@dantheman and @berniesanders may not agree on the value this post contributes, but I like that they are willing to talk about it instead of getting into some sort of "whale war" where cliques form and people vote because they feel they should and not because they actually believe in what they are doing.
Hey Jeff, you are no fucking slouch. You show up on steemit and only a matter of days you give it the hypeshit treatment. I am glad you are here and actually delving into the intricacies. You are one of the top assets here and glad to see you take it with humility. BTW I am your friend Cory Barnes on FB.
Did you see my post? @dollarvigilante? Wanna buy my accounts?
No, it doesn't deserve to be flagged just you didn't like it or think it's making too much money.
I'm doing a happy dance. :)
My interpretation of the events last week were.. there was a 'scammer' who decided to come up with a post. It just so happened that was one of the posts you decided to share the wealth in the comments section @berniesanders.
Then @dantheman downvoted all your comments so the scammer wouldnt receive a payout.
In retaliation you downvoted @dollarvigilante as @dantheman was obviously a fan.
If my interpretation is right then you were both wrong, there are no 'evil whales'. Just misunderstandings. I'm probably wrong in my interpretation, I dont know the whole story. Please correct me if im wrong.
As for this post, It's one of the founders releasing some information. Maybe it is worth that much? I don't know, I've found alot of value in @dantheman s posts.
My downvote on that post had absolutely nothing to do with Dan or his voting. As I said in the comment that content has been posted a million times here on Steemit and IMO didn't deserve the payout it was set to receive, so I downvoted. Simple as that, nothing personal, just didn't think it was worth the reward or benefitting Steemit. @dollarvigilante is a great writer, just trying to hold him to some standards if he's going to receive such significant payouts.
Ok that's fair. Like I said I didn't know the whole story and was just speculating. I can see why you made your decision.
IMO, this really really has not been given enough attention. @berniesanders explained the downvote. To me, at least the explanation was pretty compelling.
The post that got downvotes was positively absurd. It was a guy who made all his money on steemit because of his well known name and because a group of whales decided to vote for him posting about how to write a successful post on steemit.
Now thats fine that hes well known. But you can't then go on to write a post about the "secrets to making a lot of money on steem" when your "secret" is that he youre famous. And to make matters worse, his "secret" was something that has been done to death as a post on steemit. Vauge, common sense posting guidelines that have been posted 100 times. ANd when they were posted before by authors on curation lists, they should have been downvoted all those times too.
ANd also, @berniesanders wasn't nearly strong enough to remove all payment himself. there were plenty of people who agreed that it was a shitty post.
i only have 4 postes in total .. just wondering what drove you to flag my testing post which has almost no payout
https://steemit.com/top-news/@bue/news-top
edit: I actually can't even take down my flag now anyway.
Maybe you should open your eyes and actually look and see WHO it was that provided the significant rewards to the post. It was not the many voters, it was Dan and one of his coworkers. So now, who is gaming the system? Thanks again for your clueless response.
Edit: Thanks for the vote, I'll downvote yours as well for making such an ignorant comment.
Edit: Well, that took you down to a 6 rating, maybe that's a little harsh. Too bad, some of your posts are actually decent.
I don't believe you should downvote / flag the post @berniesanders . I feel that flagging is for spamming and plagiarism. Not that you don't feel it is worth that much. I feel that people should either upvote or not vote and only flag if it is spam / plagiarism. The biggest problem with Steemit right now is that the Whales aren't actually voting and engaging on a large scale like us minnows who are pushing hard. If you look on CatchAWhale.com the entire first page of whales have voting power of usually 99% or 100%. I'm constantly engaging and voting and my voting power is usually between 60% and 80%. I'm not saying the curation reward should be increased but I have a feeling the whales are too busy or uninterested in spending the time engaging with the community like those who are new to the platform. This will cause the attrition level of good new content creators to be pretty extreme. I see it on YouTube all the time. People busting ass and then they quit because they can't be profitable. I'm not trying to sound like a Baby Back McBitch but if the whales don't vote and engage with the content creators then we are looking at a very long period of blogging for pocket change. It could cause Steemit to not reach escape velocity to get to Mars like I thought we were on all on board with.
@brianphobos You sir, have just hit the nail on the proverbial Bonce!
followed
@brianphobos Like I said before here...
https://steemit.com/steemit/@williambanks/response-to-dantheman-notice-to-bot-spammers
There really are two classes of users, owners and larpers. But there is also a third class and that class are "mods" or moderators. We call them whales here, but let's call them what they are "mods".
As moderators, they have a duty of care to make sure that a post doesn't get too much money if it isn't representative of the wishes of the community as a whole. There is nothing wrong with a whale who downvotes a post for too much money when there is only so much to go around. As long as they state the reason. "I think this post is seriously overvalued".
This power really should be reserved for instances where a post is more than $1,000 though.
I would put money that all of these 'mods' are from the same demographic, I would also assume that none of us (users) have officially given these people our blessings to make decisions on our behalf. I understand that the site is centralised, but if there are 'mods' which I agree with you there are, then where can I vote to say that I don't want any posts downvoted because a guy who I've never met, who's social/political/family/financial views I may not agree with feels that it has earned too much money. Who is he/she to make decisions on my/our behalf? An early adopter? SO WHAT! What we have here my friend is awful governance. A lot of users here are from the blockchain/Bitcoin community/mindset, Where freedom of choice is abundant, and external control is limited. I can pretty much guarantee that when a platform arrives that stops 'other' people being able to cancel the money you've earned arrives, then we'll all jump ship, and Steem will sink just as quickly as it's risen.
@cryptosi I'm not defending it bu I am explaining it. The system here is one where if you don't like things, you vote with your wallet.
Same advice I gave to @thedollarvigilante is the same advice i give you now.
Fix it by buying steem. It's not that these guys are early adopters, it's that they are investors and using their say to drive things the way they want it to go.
If you had more steem than them, you could drive it the way you wanted to.
Also we're all from the same demographic :) Steem has an appeal for people who shun social media in general but can be bribed to join a social media network. That's not a huge amount of diversity. But there will always be a diversity of opinion.
So instead of "Free Market" voting, instead it is a Governing Board that determines and can control the value of all the posts? Not exactly how it was marketed.
@whatsup It's a matter of evolutionary phases. At this early stage, it was felt that the need for upfront funding in exchange for an immediate amount of control and prestige was a pretty good deal. Right now many of the whales are powering down. As they do this it drives the price of steem down and allows you to gain more power simply by purchasing steem from the open market, or buying and holding SBD until the price drops low enough that you can convert to steem and power it up.
It's an inherently unfair & unbalanced system (as recently described by dan), that will eventually evolve towards a system which is more fair and more balanced.
I disagree. Even though I upvoted for this post, downvoting should be a means of expressing disapproval not only to the post content but also to the post earnings.
I have to disagree with you @minitek Personally on YouTube i will very rarely give someone a thumbs down. If someone tricked me with click bait or something like that I will downvote them. If someone drop kicks a new born infant in their video I will flag them. I wouldn't just thumbs down them because I don't like their view point. I might leave a comment saying I disagree with them. I just think the thumbs down or downvote breeds trolls and haters. Then everyone is in a war down voting each other to get back at each other.
Ok, now I'm flagged by the trucker who is selling his accounts. His brakes went out and he is going down a mountain! There is no stopping him!
@brianphobos ask for it to be removed in chat. It is a False Flag!
but why should the way someone else uses their vote be controlled by your "feelings".
Please downvote this. There are far better posts that won't get a fraction of the $2700 it's currently set to receive. Plus, he's been churning out these voting posts non-stop and they're kind of pointless.
I had the same impression. I began reading dan's post only to be let down at the very end that he didn't propose a code change or chainfork to detail with the problem and then ask people what they thought of the proposed change.
I am especially happy that we are having discussions like this though. I voted you up, because I instantly got that "pointless" feeling... if we're not going to plan a fix.
BTW.. I really did think upvoting my own content was something I earned the right to do, and should do..
Apparently I'm learning that its wrong, eventhough the system allows it, and rather than fix it, we're going to have a never ending saga of posts to continue... That does seem pointless.
Yeah, it deserves to be downvoted, if you agree with the idea that people should be worried about counteracting other people's votes (or bots), instead of just enjoying curating content or coming up with ideas on how to make bots that are good for everyone.
Then you have your comment ... is it really worth over $11? I dunno. Maybe relative to the OP. But in general, probably not.
I think limitations such as voting power and having to worry about what other people are voting up kinda ruins things.
What if votes and pending payouts were hidden, encrypted, and only revealed at payout time? The game would change completely. Remove the voting power penalties, or at least reduce the penalty a lot, to allow people to vote freely, up or flag down.
Bots would gain nothing by autovoting except in cases where they autovote based on past earnings (i.e. have an author's list). Those author lists, across bots, will eventually be virtually identical and make the pie seem kinda small, until each bot is making so little it's eventually not worth it, so the number of bots doing certain kinds of autovoting will stabilize and their will be far less possible exploits.
What are the negatives of hiding the votes and pending payout amounts until after payout time?
There is a large growing group of us that believe payout time is the only time a post should reveal its value, even if it is only on the GUI. But encrypting it on the chain could work too!
If all posts are seen as equal in value (no value shown), they are more likely to receive proper curation.
While a post is going viral with popularity, I don't want to see if it is at $1.21 or $1,532 because I know a lot of less knowledgable curators are going to chase the $1,532 post, and ignore the $1.21 one simply by glancing at the current $ value as a sole indicator.
Allow the user to show the value or not. Should be an option.
So, here is the way I look at it. Dan is a celebrity in this community. Whether or not anyone believes his thoughts are better or worse than others, in this particular attention economy, the value derived from his post is tied to the attention he commands. And in this instance, it commanded over $2,500. Not worth a downvote, IMO, but maybe a ¯\ (ツ)/¯.