You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Call to bot owners to block top 50 rewarded authors!
We implemented this out of common sense at steemstem, with no single individual (including curators, managers, founders, but not including the community account which adds funds to VP etc) able to pass 2.75% of out total curation weight. If one reaches that, we either give minimal upvotes or none until they fall back down based on the steemreports 14 day average.
It ain't that hard
Makes good sense unless someone is a big fat bloated greedy whale.
Then we work together as a group and flag the greedy whale, just as stated in the white paper.
Except if the whale has more steem power than you.
I am going to assume you have not read the whitepaper, otherwise you wouldn't have made that statement.
In the white paper in the subsection named voter abuse under the section voting to distribute the currency (I believe thats what its called, could be wrong but I am going off of memory) it states something along the following:
If a large stakeholder is abusing their voting share than many smaller shareholders can work together to nullify the rewards.
It also says in that section (above this) that negative-voting (downvote/flag) is there to stop such abuse such as: collusive voting, self-voting, etc.
It is really a good read for the hypothetical situation at what steem was intended to be and you should probably read it. I mean, steem is a lot different than what was initially planned but still. Even still it is a good read!
No, they can't, a 50.01% share of the stake would be invincible. Nothing you said negates his point.
No whale has 125 million SP, many would fight to prevent a whale from getting 125 million SP.... As well, due to how rewards are given, if a whale had 125 million SP... His vote would be worth around $1, why? Because the reward pool would be gone.
You have some errors in your basic assumptions of how the reward pool works.
First of all, currently no single user holds greater than 50% of the active state, if however a group worked together to hold greater than 50% than sure they can't be stopped but his question referred to a single user. So now we look at the largest active user and see how much it would take for them to hold greater than 50% of the active stake, well since the reward fund is not able to supply that they would have to first drain the reward fund to nothing in order to get greater than 50% and considering others will be gaining a profit at the same time (such as other whales) you can determine an approximate rate at which it will drain and find the rate at which the top whale is growing proportional to the rest and extrapolate to find the 50% mark... that mark comes after the 100,000,000 SP point nearing the 125 million SP in total and will require the user to constantly drain the reward pool..... making votes worthless (value of a vote is directly proportional to amount in the reward fund)
And that requires that all users blindly accept such behavior.... No whale on this platform is that fucking stupid... but are you? Anyone that gives any of a flying fuck about their own rewards would not let anyone grow that fast....
Anyways, with this I conclude you have some errors in your assumptions on the reward pool.... Come back to me when you figure out the math behind this
More than all the minnows put together.
I was looking for this information. Thanks for the scale!
Right, when you can't get 100 people to upvote a post encouraging people to manage their own votes, you're going to get enough votes to correct a bernie, or a grumpycat? Good luck with that. If you figure out how, please share.
There are whales out there upvoting themselves to $300+ and you are concerned with someone that voted themselves to around $30 and got another $14 from their followers...
Anyways large pools of voters do go after and attempt to counter whale votes, some go after grumpycat, some go after bernie, and some go after others. The problem in most cases isn't that people don't want to vote, its that some groups of people are dumb enough to say "Flagging is violent and stealing" which convinces many that it is evil when it isn't. Maybe if people were educated, from day 1, that voting on something, up or down, is something they choose to do. If they think that a post is overvalued to negatively vote it and if its undervalued to positively vote it, as well to accurately teach them about curation (a lot of things I see still tell people to vote on posts that are valued high because they are more likely to gain curation rewards) and so much more... then when they do learn the truth about these things they feel cheated.
Ever thought that those posts encouraging people to manage their votes just weren't that good and didn't deserve that much for rewards, in other peoples eyes? Like there are so many reasons why people do and don't vote stuff, and quite often they are more likely to vote on controversial issues where you can get their heart into it, like say some user is raping the reward pool (gets a lot of people triggered enough to go vote)
Play your articles to the crowd.
Maybe this argument will make more sense if I use my main account. I'm not a beginner here. I've been around a while. And yeah, I'm concerned about vote buying.
The top trending articles in nearly every category are further enriching those same whales, there are two up there today, at least, that have over $300 in votes purchased, and it's 17% of the total prize pool being awarded to purchased votes, so, yes, And that whale profit can't be downvoted.
Well Grumpycat has gotten many of the major bidbots to change to the 3 day thing, which while doesn't solve the problem does give us a lot more freedom in flagging trash posts that don't deserve rewards. So while I may not be able to convince a bidbot to change on my own, some people (and groups) can bring about change.
I agree with that, but without reigning in the "reward laundering" where the whales do not subject themselves to scrutiny through self-voting, the bottom of the platform and the top of the platform will continue to grow further apart as users see buying votes the only way to succeed.
Well we just need more users that go and rise without the use of vote buying then.
I mean why not show users that it is possible to get bigger without the use of buying votes? Though the little users buying votes might spend 5-10 steem/sbd a week, they aren't really the ones getting the $300-600 payouts in trending
you should make this comment into a "how to be successful in steemit" article 5 stars
which bot is this? i may actually use the bot if it is set up like you say. i did not see @steemstem on steembottracker.
No, we manually create, and keep an eye on it. It wouldnt be hard if we wanted to simply stop votes after a certain % has been passed, such as a discord bot (which we do use to for more convenient curating methods)
@mobbs yes but due to low ROI some time bots are not so profitable :(
Posted using Partiko Android