You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Self-voting, Vote Trading and Enlightened Game Theory
To be fair, I totally understand that those who invested will not want a change in the incentives structure, but doesn't it come down to whether Steem is a short-term cash cow, or a long-term social media platform?
Maybe if the economic incentives changed, self-voting on comments for visibility could seem more reasonable because in doing so, you would be sacrificing some profit for visibility. That feels like a more natural trade-off.
Those that see the problem with self voting (long term effects) will take appropriate measures against the problem on a case by case basis. Then if someone abuses the system they will have to Power Down and move out, or change ways. If they want to delegate that power it will be tainted and people will uncover them soon enough especially if they will continue on that path.
This in turn will probably drive such people to use alts and bots to self-vote which will be harder to pick up on, but wait for it, the day is coming when we will have even more data, correlating and matching who gets the majority of the RShares from so and so account and there won't be much that won't come under the light of inquiry and even now we have all the data we need to spot the majority of spam or especially collusive behavior we just don't have all the analytical options. And this is the network winning thus far, wrong will always exist and yet we have within ourselves to confront our demons and I think the most direct way would be the best way to go about dealing with abuse. Call it out, say hey, this isn't right, if everyone followed your example there wouldn't be a point to community.
The difficulty of analysis isn't as severe as the flag disincentive problem. I work on many such tools as @steemreports.
If somebody only has a profit motive, trying to change their behaviour though appeals to morality or long-termism won't work as well as changing the economic incentives.
No, it's through appeals to profit, you can flag them and remove their incentive, they will then have to power down and move on, find another sucker. If people call it out, if we become aware of it then it's very much our responsibility then to correct it. If we try to appeal to the few fence sitters by compromising our authors then I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot. If flagging doesn't work (ultimately) then maybe we should consider something else, but why tax the content producers for the acts of a few?