the amount voting bots take from the reward pool is minimal to the high users who selfvote and vote each other and if used late are a means to pay those who voted early more curation rewards as opposed to how for they are advertised to add visibility to posts and should be used early,this isn't accurate and would need to spend $30+ for most listed tags to be seen for a short period and also gives high sp voting bots a significant portion of rewards.
also the amount of automated voting is more of an issue to bots as can be used easily to take free votes regardless of quality of content.
ideally if steemit worked to give value to high quality content by any user and not based on amount invested,or whatever vote group are a part of would see continuous growth and that high quality content creators from other sites trying to join the platform
Hi @isacoin,
I agree that a more balanced system could be put in place. If there was not a level playing field, then an incentive for whales to upvote minnows, no upvoting the self and a way to remove those that have no interest in Steemit, but just try to draw what they can from it, usually in the form of laziness, via plagiarised content or uncredited or unlinked stolen work in the form of vieos, normally from YouTube. You should only be able to share videos created by yourself.
I also feel that if something isn't done to change these glaring errors, then Steemit may well degenerate into something a lot less attractive to those with a creative angle. We are not stupid and we are investing our time, energy and cretivity into Steemit, and we are not doing it just for some arsehole to constantly draw money from the communal pot, which we all build, to make themselves fatter. It reminds me too much of that which Steemit professes not to be.
I agree that Steemit would be more attractive to the creative onlookers if it were tweaked a little and I find it hard to sell the idea to people, when I have to explain the upvoting problem. I wonder what the reason for self-upvoting being there is?
yes but current high users who benefit from these actions wouldn't support themselves losing out in the short term.
On plagiarized content until outside laws are developed for incentivesed platforms mainly crypo based,high users who run spam bots and users who post YouTube videos will continue unchecked.
Its funny because their actions are similar to what happened with the global finical crisis with those with more wealth being granted funds at the expense of the everybody else and the economy as a whole.
devaluing their own investment by centralizing income gains and not supporting new users that regularly produce high quality content.
The content creators are what give value to steem not the ability to vote.
I doubt they will ever change the system to stop this as those users who do like this think the gains they receive shouldn't be effected as they are invested so much and believe the votes they give themselves and each other are profits from investment even though the bring down the overall value by doing so.
I believe the self-voting is a means to give investors some profit from their investment.