I never suggested any self voting I find that a ridiculous idea.
Again the amount of money you have should not effect voting power.
This is the exact flawed corrupt model we run in real societies where wealth buys power and votes!
Separate financial investment from voting its essential to both sets of users. The financial investment will become worthless if good content isn't allowed to find flourish in a fair and free system .... and the creative and talented people who are fun to read will move onto a platform that provides them with a real voice. If a platform started today with one person one vote and no Whales it would extract a serious amount of value out of Steemit straight away.
Why is everyone mixing up voting with financial input?? The two must be kept separate otherwise you have whats known as a Feudal system "rule by the rich"
Arguing against this is like arguing that George Soros or Bill Gates should get a million votes each in the next election.
As ridiculous as you might find it, it happens.
The reason people are making this link is because those with higher balances are, technically, greater stakeholders.
It takes nothing to start an account then start copying and pasting or writing one liner posts with a gif. Do these people enhance the value of the platform? Should they have an equal say in what kinds of posts are worthwhile? Should we give them the whale vote?
I agree that giving someone 3k votes based on their financial standing would be detrimental if we were talking about elected officials, but the system we're discussing is that of content, curating & creating content & the financial incentive of holding an investment for the long term.
As it stands the Steem market does not have the capitalisation to support the indicated values shown in all the accounts. If someone with an account worth '$3 million' decides to liquidate their account, the market will take a steep nosedive.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes .... it happens at the moment thats why we are discussing what changes to make isn't it? What kind of point is that?? It happens now so it can't be referred to as ridiculous or ever changed?
Again (sigh) someone starting a fake account and copying and pasting would not fair well in the mechanisms of a free market your actually making my point for me?
If you had one equal vote your saying everyone will vote for "one liner" and "copy and paste" posts??? Im saying the complete opposite the reason things like that are on here is because we have a huge problem with the curation of content in the hands of the few. Leave the judgement of good content to all users, yes even ones you personally dont like. I believe they call that equality.
"do we give them the whale vote?" what difference would it make if they cant upvote their own content? Plus my idea for a "whale vote" as your putting it is just a slightly graded system of voting not some enormous power like it is now. its the difference between upvoting 20 cents rather than 10 and is equal for all
I've enjoyed this discussion but as you continue making points that its pretty clear i've already covered I say we agree to disagree. Lets see how it works out in the future hopefully common sense will prevail
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't think at any point you suggested that they wouldn't be able to upvote their own post.
You say that you're arguing for a free market but insist on restrictions.
You didn't outline the parameters for the 'whale vote' previously.
Look, when the facts change I change my mind. We're already seeing changes made to the voting system and I anticipate that we'll see more to come. I'm looking forward to seeing the future of Steemit and there is no definitive right or wrong way of doing things.
Yes, let's agree to disagree.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit