A path toward proper distributions on Steem
It’s no secret, Steem has a problem with the distributions. From the epic flag wars between @haejin and @berniesanders to self voting accounts who give themselves thousands for simple comments; with Steemit’s CEO, @ned, being the latest culprit, giving himself a $2,000+ upvote for a 3 word comment squabble with @dan (as of this writing, he has taken it's value back to $0 and has explained his intent, kudos to you @ned for clearing that up, at least somewhat). The controversies seem to be growing, but the broader Steem community is stepping up and putting their collective minds together to find solutions. This is a sign of a healthy thriving community concerned with Steem's future, not just their own. I'd like to add a few of my ideas to the distribution conversation that, if implemented, may finally allow us to move forward.
Early rules of inflation and interest gave the the first adopters a ludicrously unfair advantage and they were able to rack in millions of Steem for comparatively little effort or investment. They now control the vast lion’s share of the distribution power and many have taken advantage of this with “in voting” (upvoting only a few select authors) and self voting. It has gotten to a point where I believe it will devalue all of our investments and make success on this platform an impossible feat. This must be remedied, and it can be with a few simple modifications to the rules.
Upvotes should have a maximum limit.
There is no need for anyone to get a $2,000 upvote from a single user, let alone themselves. The max upvote should be limited to $100 (or whatever the Steem equivalent is) which would keep self voting abuse from disgraceful ranges and force a wider distribution from whales. It’s easy to do this by simply limiting max voting strength to the percentage that would give the max allowable upvote. So if 10% voting strength gave a $100 upvote, the user could never upvote above 10%. No gimmicks, convoluted schemes, flag wars, or class wars necessary.
Replies should have an even smaller limit. There is no circumstance where a comment deserves more than a $10 upvote. None, it’s inconceivable how someone can give themselves a $100, let alone $2,000, upvote for a comment.
This will incentivize whales to delegate some of their SP instead of using it on self voting, or encourage them to spread their votes around properly.
This is not a complex solution, it does not force anyone to distribute their votes, it does not force redistribution of wealth, it does not force burning of wealth, it does not unfairly reward users with universal air drops. But it keeps the abuse in check and encourages better distributions now and in the future. It sends a message to investors and the Steem community that the platform wants all to succeed.
This got me thinking about the fact that I, by default, allow the self vote on my posts (not comments, though). After reading this post, I did a little research to find that a lot of people feel self voting is basically a sin -- arrogant, greedy, etc...
But you hit the critical point, for me. It's a matter of degree. If someone's self vote is worth $0.10, that's one thing. If it's $2,000, it's another.
Since I find that moralizing in the end becomes another form of corruption, I'm disinclined to support the idea that self-voting is inherently wrong.
For the folks on the $0.10 side of the spectrum, I think the upvote helps with a couple functions:
And as you suggest, in the end it's about balance and fairness. If the network doesn't feel fair, people will leave -- or fork.
That's why I love this Steem/Steemit experiment. I was telling folks at a meetup last night that I love the high quality of debate and reflection on Steemit about the cryptoeconomics involved.
Agreed, @aggroed had made a post saying the exact same thing regarding self votes. I also think It shouldn’t be about morals or what most people consider fair. I like to think Steemit should aim for fairness in the context of a meritocracy, not in the sense of equality for all.
I do think there should be a path to success for every type of user though. As of now, the pure consumers don’t have a meaningful sway in the system, or a way to get there. That should be addressed. I’ll be posting on that shortly.
I like the way you phrase that: a "path to success" for everyone. While it might require more/less work for each type of user, that path ought to be clear enough.
Looking forward to that post!
... adding an upvote for directing me to @aggroed. I was unaware of him until now. Extremely grateful when I find solid folks to follow.
👍🏼 Yeah, he's the guy that started and runs the Minnow Support Project, and a top 20 witness. Dude is holding it down for Steem and the lil' guys, and he is being met with a lot of success. He's a model whale, IMO.
This resonated with me, @seanlloyd. I am relatively new to steem, just a few weeks in, and was unsure how to navigate the whole "self-voting" thing. I, like you, had toggled--whether on accident I can't recall: I wanna say that auto-self-upvote is the default mode, no?--the self-upvote switch early on. Anyway, like you, after going a bit further along, I encountered many-an-opinion that "self-upvoting" was like a cardinal sin on steemit.
I still didn't think too much about self-voting; didn't think it really mattered--namely because my vote was only worth a penny or whatever its SBD equivalent at the time; a "small" amount, relatively speaking--though, I would like to mention, this is, of course, quite subjective. It also occurred to me that voting for one's own post could also be seen as a simple act of self-confidence. It is like the old adage: if you don't have belief in yourself, well, then it can often be quite difficult for someone else to. I'm actually grappling with whether or not to "upvote" a post I made recently--an entry into an "open mic" contest on steemit--namely, for the simple facts that:
A) I have confidence in my performance;
B) my "vote" might get help me "move up in the queue," so to speak, and more people might see me
C) it's like a CEO paying himself from the company he owns! (As long as that pay is within reason, of course)
I think some of this self-promotion is kind of a "FOMO" type-thing--it's like: "Well, if I don't promote myself, well, what if no one does??" As a newb, I'm still learning the different ways to try and get myself out there and connect with other steemians.
Of course, this is where things become somewhat ironic. We also know, as humans: everyone hates a braggart. And it's a very fine-line between confidence and arrogance. Seeing someone "vote for one's self" can, sometimes, be off-putting. The more I've been on steemit, the more I have come to adopt this latter philosophy. As difficult as it may be to sometimes feel "unappreciated" or "marginalized," it can be often prove more detrimental to one's "position" to attempt to artificially engender some sort of support. One's place is best found "organically," in its own time. (To this point, I was taken aback when a fellow steemian--I will maintain their anonymity--made a post which was essentially intended to shame some certain participants in a contest the former had held because the latter winners of the contest failed to send a "thank you note" after receiving their prize. They were also mad that someone would "upvote their post with anything less than 100%"--pointing out that said user's vote was "already basically worthless; why would they withhold even more [from their vote]? Seriously?? I am appalled at some people's lack of self-awareness... )
Thank you again, @seanlloyd for your post: it got me thinking about important issues, and how I need to be sure to present myself respectfully on steemit and not selfishly or with greed.
That being said: EVERYONE: PLEASE WATCH MY STEEMIT OPEN MIC ENTRY, WEEK 71 AND UPVOTE ME (be sure it's 100% only!!!):
https://steemit.com/openmic/@gjones15/steemit-open-mic-week-71-ever-since :):):P
Thank you! I'm glad you found some value.
I think these discussions are extremely important. When they are conducted with humility and reflection, we all become better people. Ultimately it allows us to navigate the gray areas -- where it the idea of self-voting shifts from being okay to being selfish.
I tend to disregard dogma that seeks to replace the gray areas with "thou shalls" or "thou shall nots". It's unhealthy and leads to censorship. People have a free voice and that always needs to be honored. Hopefully we can find the health norms around self-voting without drawing artificial lines of sin.
That's why I appreciated @theferalone 's post.
Dear @theferalone.
You propose a very simple and clear solution to thet very problem. I think a limit to upvotes makes total sense both as you describe to 100 USD on posts and 10 USD on comments. It is important that we limit the actions of over-powerful whales and spread STEEM wider into the lower rangs of the platform. I am not only saying that, because I am part of the lower beginners group, but also because I am a strong believer that systems need to change and evolve constantly and adapt to new situations. The new situation is a stable x20 worth increasement of STEEM while the user count boosts up as well, generating a group of very powerful old users and a large group of almost non-existant new users who will never be able to grow big without a real chance of the next crypto boom.
We chould change the rules now to make give everybody the chance to grow depite crypto peaks or not through a different distribution.
I resteemed this post, but with only a few followers I can not make any difference.
Please let me know hoe I can spread the word even further.
Thank you for your brilliant and easy idea.
Moritz
Bravo! Heartily agree!! This is my full 1cent worth. 😕 I do agree seriously tho. Rome rotted from the inside too!
Eliminate self voting
For everything. @theferalone
Till then, game on. 😊
I agree. But there are circumstances where self voting may be useful. For instance, non prophets, development, etc. if the self upvote is going to support a worthy cause, it is ok in my book. But only then. I think that would be such a major change that it would take longer to convince everyone.
Everyone has a circumstance @theferalone
Who will define which circumstance qualifies for an upvote?
No one, the culture will should self regulate. Let it be considered abuse and risk downvotes. That's my take on the matter.
EXCELLENT SUGGESTION!
Upvoted 100% (it's nowhere near 2k) and Resteemed!
Lol, thanks so much! It’s still a lot for me! 😁
Thanks for sharing your insight. As a Steemit noob, I'm still learning about the distribution, and best practices for generating and giving upvotes etc. Sounds like you raise some valid points for developing a lasting and healthy future for this platform. I look forward to following your future posts.
Interesante, no sabia esas cosas, cada día uno aprende algo nuevo!
This is a really great idea.. if whales delegated more SP to more people even more people could be reached further improving the platform as a whole.. which is good for everyone with SP in the long run.
The distribution problem is definitely a hard one to tackle. While there may initially appear to be solutions that solve these issues there are always creative attack vectors that bad actors can utilize while finding loopholes to those solutions.
Here's a possible attack against this solution:
That being said, I always appreciate when members of the community bring ideas to the table so that we can discuss them. Eventually someone will make a breakthrough and then we can lead a campaign for positive change and fixing some of the issues that plague the blockchain.
Yes. Those are ways around the problem. But it will still force extra work. I think those ways around it fit into another form of abuse as well, which is fake accounts. I’m not sure there’s a way to solve that problem. But users who only vote on a small range of authors can be easily spotted. In general, I think it’s about creating a culture here where certain behavior is clearly recognized as hurting the platform, and others as benefiting it. Having a rule like this in place will guide the culture and make it known that the developers and community care about distribution ratios. It’ll build confidence in the platform overall. I believe.
If I could put more than my $0.01 to this post I would. Oh wait I can re-steem it. I JUST DID!!
Nice! I'm always disappointed when I can't upvote or resteem older articles that I really want to support.