You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Are You Paying Randowhale? Do You Know How He is Using YOUR Money? Not to Upvote You with His Massive SteemPower.....Read Here
This is getting ridiculous. I have made more money learning from @Haejin in about 2 months than by trying to learn from hundreds of other people from across all the social media sites for over a year. @Haejin has never asked me for 1 penny of money. He does it all out of the goodness of his heart. The terrorizing being done by these bot accounts has to stop of Steemit will die.
In all fairness, @haejin asks for upvotes, which are money.
He makes money, and enjoys making money. I don't think this is bad, but it is true. Hundreds of users have voluntarily used their stake to upvote haejin, and that's probably why he keeps doing his videos. For the money.
That's also probably why I'm still writing articles. For the money. Let's not get confused that we are in some harmonious 'free' society.
Upvotes are given at no cost to share support. The money is on the receiving side only except for sp curation reward. So this is a win-win.
He might be asking for upvotes, but he gets them organically anyway. We should all be so consistent, successful, and motivating.
I believe we generally feel similarly, but there is a reason that I am being obtuse here.
We are all earning money. This is great! But these flag wars have a tendency to divide us, and we resort to saying things that aren't true - sophmorisms.
Why does @fernowl13 say this? This is not a claim that berniesanders is making, no one ever 'accused' @haejin of soliciting funds. They accused him of 'reward pool rape'. Now whether that is an actual thing, or if it is a thing we should worry about, that is the discussion. We cannot get confused about red-state, blue-state or urban-rural discussions - or any other topics that might divide us.
Bull. I don't believe you for a second. I bet he does have a great heart, but he is an economic agent like us. I love what he does, I watch his videos. But don't use rainbows and unicorn falsities to fight bernie, use logic and philosophy!
@haejin makes a lot of money on steemit. People have complained about it, its that much! I am thrilled to be part of a platform where one of the biggest problems is that there are people making too much money!
But talking about whether he's charged or not? Isn't that missing the point? He's here because Steem is a revolutionary new system of creating value, where we are hacking the market system, agreeing that these token have value, then agreeing how to distribute that value based on our stake.
This may be unfortunate, but I think Bernie may have every right to vote how he likes with his stake, just as ranchorelaxo, you and me have the right to vote with our stakes. I certainly agree that we are doing it better than bernie (How much curation do flags get?), but that is Bernie's choice. All we can do is opine here in the public opinion.
I'm going to rip-off something I've previously posted.
To me @haejin is like LOL or DOTA but waaaaay better. You can reward him if you like. You get the same content whether you reward him or not. I've come to trust him because of his excellent results. But initially I'd have shown contempt/disdain if he had somehow declined rewards.
Altruists are just Evil that hasn't fully blossomed : https://steemit.com/steem/@taskmaster4450/steemit-new-motto-earn-lots-of-money-launching-personal-attacks-so-we-all-can-laugh-at-others-it-is-a-sure-winner
My full comment was on the above article.
You are right. The entire society is set up so if you do not have money, you do without. Up to and including dying of starvation, freezing to death or whatever. We have made money into a god. I still stand by the FACT that Haejin has NEVER ASKED ME for a single penny and he does it out of the goodness of his heart. He has continued to do it even though some fat whales are making sure he doesn't make a penny.
Yep. He doesn't charge a penny. He just take all the rewards that are voluntarily given to him like any self-respecting confident person would. He never ask for a penny and never rejects a penny. I have yet to see a person who is good that reject money. That's what I'm saying.
I'm a massive Ayn Rand fan BTW. I've written many posts on steemit.
If you don't like the way it is working than alter the rules of the game to be FAIR. HAEJIN has more than enough money outside of STEEM....
Do you understand that this is meant as a positive comment about @haejin. I just don't have delusions about world.I haven't met a single good person that reject money/rewards; only good people who doesn't care about money/rewards.
@haejin doesn't care about the money (hence the free access to everything) yet he's reaping everything that is rewarded to him. Therefore he doesn't reject money and isn't evil but a good person on steemit.
Do I make myself clear?
The only fairness can be achieved through free movement and voluntary transactions.
Long live lazize faire and may we have our Utopia of Greed (Galt's Gulch)
I don't see how this is a "revolutionary system of creating value" when it's obviously necessary to bicker over a couple of hundred bucks. If this money pool function is not working, then steemit is fucked beyond all the hype, as it's a very primitive social network which has actually NOTHING ELSE to offer. It's a blockcharin crypto that uses a very simplistic service-free social network setup as marketing ersatz. In effect, @haejin is one of its best marketers, while berniesanders and similar web leeches are absolutely NOT.
You are correct that haejin is also here for the money, but his self-marketing is intelligent and he is a very good analyst = value.
I don't know what you do, you may also be a value creator. But up-an-downvote bots are obviously worthless.
Ok, so, as I said to @fitinfun, I think we agree here, I am being perhaps a bit obtuse philosophically, because its saturday morning and I love a good philosophical discussion.
Probably true, but I think it is working. Let's check out @haejin's page - I see thousands of dollars in the last few days. The only thing hidden is a resteem by @libertyteeth, who, for good or bad, decided to go toe-to-toe with bernie.
Is this not what a functioning society looks like? Did someone tell you that it would be rainbows and unicorns all the way?
Bots are tools made by humans. That humans can be terrible is, historically, accurate.
Our 'job' here is to use our stakes to determine what is valuable. That not all people will agree is recognized in the whitepaper. The system is working.
Here is my thinking. We have our incentives misaligned. steemit has more valuable content than spam or plagiarism. Minnows barely earn any curation and for whales loss of curation doesn't matter much.
So what if make flags cost 3% or even 4% voting power instead of 2%. There is less incentive to flag. Positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement. There will always be abusers and bad actors.
Not many would go around flagging left and right if they had to choose between 3 upvotes+positive interaction+curation rewards Vs 2 Flags+negativity.
People will require of themselves a very good reason to use their VP on flags. So naturally the flags would concentrate on content than can easily be identified as "Bad for steemit" (Spam, plagiarized content, promoting terrorism, spreading false info etc.)
Don't try to control actions. Instead, adjust the incentives and actions would follow.
Don't try to make things perfect. Keep it simple. Keep it elegant. Too many moving parts means too much complexity means too many ways things could go south.
I agree with your underlying analysis of incentives!
I think charging more VP for a flag could be a very elegant solution, to ease things in the right direction.
Not steemit, but the blockchain tech, yes 🙄. It depends on how you apply it. Developers are still experimenting with the tech and things will improve and get better with time. Just try to stick it out , ok. 🙂.It's a bit hard to apply anything flawlessly to dynamics and unpredictability of human behaviour.
You are right, but it has to be done in an appropriate manner, would you not agree. There is no logic and reasoning in the way the guy was called out and so, you too are being biased if you fail to acknowledge this fact.
There is a problem with the flagging system and also the reward system which needs to be addressed urgently.
Flagging damages someone users rep and have the effect of sensoring them, it is not just used for lowering rewards and that you need to acknowledge. For that reason they should not have the right to flag users however they feel until the flagging system is fixed. It gets to the point that people are being flagged for difference of opinions. Totally unacceptable!
To be precise, It is clear that Haejin's pay has skyrocketed a bit too much after some 3 to 4 months and his rewards need to be lowered. However; it should be done in a professional manner. Otherwise we risk losing valuable users on this platform, especially readers (curators isnt really the right word until the system is adjusted-I do not consider a simple upvote to be curation).
You are probably right. That the system is not perfect, I am in total agreement with you.
Do you have any suggestions?
Are you really sure that taking people's 'rights' away is the only solution to this problem.
Literally the only 'rights' we have on this platform are to upvote and downvote with our stakes.
That reputation is nothing more than 'how many net upvotes and downvotes have you gotten' - this is not the best system, I think we can all see some of the potential and actual problems with this. People can self-vote a high rep or be attacked to a low rep, but generally on average the rep calc more or less tells us something. Acknowledging its limitations, I think it is more useful than not having the number.
Do you have any suggestions on how it should be better calculated?
Yes, I have a few suggestions; and you have a point about taking away people's right. What I really wanted to say is that people should be more careful with their downvotes and should always try to not use emotion when flagging someone. It shouldn't be done arbitrarily because it damages the users rep.
Here is one thing we need to adjust. When choosing the purpose for flagging, should it be for disagreement with payout, it should not affect the user's reputation. For other flagging options which are justfiable, like plagiarism etc, the effect on rep should come into play. Infact the flagging option should be changed to payment adjustement or we can remove it from the flagging option entirely and have it separate.
That flagging/downvoting could become a multi-step process sounds to me like it has potential!
;-) .
I'm not sure why someone who has thousands of loyal followers whom he is helping, would deserve to have his earnings lowered? A whale gets there by either adding thousands and thousands of their own dollars, or by adding the earnings of all the people who upvote them. I think cuttings what someone earns simply because they are popular would do nothing but deter people from trying and give the big whales even more power because you are making it harder for the little people to become whales.
Im calling the teaming up the problem.
Were it all done as an individual thing, its one thing, but to gang up disadvantages everybody else.
The socially inept have enough problems earning rewards without the socially adept force multiplying in the interests of dominating the reward pool.
Good points!
And add to that the technologically adept know how to automate much of their plans. This conversation makes me want to learn more about programming bots than anything else.
@camb has a fossbot tutorial.
I hope everybody doesnt adopt that option, we got enough problems as it is.
Im looking at fossbot to replace my steemvoter, once i am better situated.
Bernie has every right to vote but he doesn't have the right to create 60 fake robot accounts and destroy someone's earnings out of spite. Bernie is actually raping the rewards pool by offering votes through fake accounts. Everyone that votes for Haejin is real and has decided his information has value.
Bernie has the ability to vote(flag) and create as many bots as he like. But he doesn't have the right to do most of the things he is doing as they are clear violations of NAP.
Those who are not the first violators of the NAP has the right to use whatever force that doesn't go beyond neutralizing and/or preventing the first aggression.
These are the principles I stand by.
@Vimukthi What's nap?
Non-Aggression Principle
I was under the impression that anyone with a sufficiently large stake could create any arbitrary number of accounts. Those are the rules.
Want to change the rules? Maybe we should. I'm not sure how, since everything runs from stake. I have 6 accounts, and why shouldn't I? They vote how I tell them, after all they are me!
Bernie seems to do the same, although, yes I agree, in a offensive and frustrating manner. But philosophically I am having trouble escaping that it is his right to do that here on this platform, because this platform was made that way.
Can we change the rules? YES! I think there have been 19 Hard Forks so far.
But how would you change it? If not to allow for the free use of one's stake, then I'm not sure you will be left with a plaform that is worth having.
Looking forward to your ideas!
Right. Because one jackass running around with 60 accounts dictating not just positivity, but NEGATIVITY toward other users in a manner that is crippling is a great use of the platform. It's great to agree with something in principle, but in practice it can be a whole 'nother ball of wax. 19 hard forks already you say? Yeaaaah, I'll pass.
For me, and for many other users, we would literally never have come to or use this site if it weren't for the content Haejin provides. This childish drama and bickering has me rather put off this awful platform (and yes, the reddit/craigslist interface is depressingly dull). If Haejin announced tomorrow he was moving elsewhere, I would gladly leave and never look back. So all these children having a pissing match would do well to get things sorted if they would like to have anything left of Steemit 12 months from now. They can hard fork until the sun goes down, but that's not going to save it.
"Upvotes are given at no cost to share support. "
Oh, really? Can you direct me to the free Steem Power store?
Upvotes doesn't charge fees as steemit is fee-less and stake based.
But they do have a cost due to limited supply of 10 per day or else you'd drain your voting power.
It's mining through human action instead of hashing. Upvotes have a human action/interaction based cost that is clearly measured using VP.
When @fitinfun made her comment I think she tried to communicate that nothing on your steemit wallet leaves your account. She probably didn't thought about the voting power drain.
So you are both correct in your respective contexts.
Just spend a minute flagging the fools and upvoting our friends. Don't get emotional or on a crusade. This too shall pass. Don't get distracted from your goals, that is what they want.
I feel the same way, @Haejin is the only source I make sure to check in with on a daily (sometimes hourly! lol) basis. I have learned so much from him, and I love the gentle approach and kindheartedness that shows through in his teachings. Its a rare trait that attracts people naturally. There has to be a way that Steem can get control of this kind of out of hand behavior.
I really could use some followers and UPVOTES so my rating and post can be seen. I'm only trying to help @Haejin because I believe in him, what he does, how helps people and what he stands for. Please follow me and upvote my post so my rating get better. Please :(
Hope mine helps