English Translation (google translate) : I wrote down my thoughts here and there, but I think it would be beneficial to put them together in one place.

Unlike other coins that give money in proportion to the power of the excavator (POW) or equity holdings (POS), the basic spirit of steam is "I will pay for steam according to the degree of contribution to the growth of steam". It is not a structure in which money makes money, but a structure in which social contribution makes money.

Now the question is how to assess this contribution. Steam gave the shareholders with steam power the evaluation. The bottom line is that the more shares you have, the more profit you can make from the growth of steam, and that you will be more interested in the profits of Steam, which is the same as most companies do at a general meeting.

The compensation pool of steam is covered by dividing inflation, or steam, into liquids. In other words, it dilutes the share of existing holders and rewards those who contribute to steam. Because this compensation pool is limited (10% annual inflation), it is a structure where someone takes rewards and others take a little less.

So why was this controversial self-voting problem?

First, there is no part of the self-voting that contributes to the growth of steam. Some activities such as exchanging with other people, giving meaningful information or expressing emotions can be considered to some extent. But two months ago I posted a comment on my comment today! Or ten! Putting the same comment in a couple of a day and self-voting is not related to the growth of steam, but rather the waste of resources (network bandwidth, storage, memory, etc.) of the steam.

Secondly, it is unfair as an evaluator. As I mentioned earlier, Steam power holders are like referees to evaluate their contribution. However, the fact that self-voting accounts for most of the voting implies a double standard for self / others. In other words, your essay is about 10 points out of whatever it is and 0 ~ 1 point is about whatever you write about. Such unfairness can hinder the motivation of other contributing contributors. In this connection, self-voting also reduces the compensation of others. A little extreme, for example, if a super-sized whale takes $ 20,000 a day through self-voting, the rewards for all other articles will drop to half now.

The bigger problem is that if a self-voting article does not really contribute, Steam's limited budget is meaningless. Some argue that holding steam is not a contributing factor, but buying or holding steam is not related to growth. Generally speaking, Facebook does not say that Facebook has grown because its stock has doubled. Instead, they say they grew when the number of users or activity indicators grew. If self-voting becomes rampant, Steam will actually turn people who have tried to expand the steam ecosystem into compensating places, and those with money will be rewarded. Why are you familiar with it? Is not this the kind of separation society we live in?

I do not want to use our precious money and time to make another absurd society. Therefore, not only self-voting, but also plagiarism, is strongly opposed to problems such as boarding. On the other hand, I am proud of the steady growth of steam even after experiencing such pain. This is obviously due to the dedication and concern of many people. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and hope to create a more hopeful space in the future.

---

Add an example to help you understand self-voting and reward pools.

Let's say that self-voting is tolerated and everyone is doing their utmost self-voting. The compensation that each individual receives for one year is equal to 10% of the inflation rate of steam. However, since they all received 10%, the share ratio is the same. It is easy to say that there are 1000 steam and 1100 steam, total output is 1 billion, and it is 1.1 billion. It is the third samosa.

So what about the steam price in this situation? SNS and everyone is doing self-voting in the meaningless article. How many additional investors and users will come in? Without additional investment and no sell, theoretically, steam prices fall by about 11% per year. In reality, if expectation disappears, it will drop much more. Would self-voting be profitable in the long run?