One downvote cost 50% ($350) - this seems a bit extreme

in steem •  8 years ago 

My post https://steemit.com/steem/@jl777/sbd-at-0025-btc-how-is-this-making-any-sense-i-explain-what-happened-with-the-pricings-today was doing fine with $700 after 9 hours. Then it got one downvote and is now at $350. The downvote was from the person that my post talked a little bit about, but I believe I only made factual statements.

I know it is all part of how things work, but the way it is, there is no way to say anything that a whale does not like without risking HALF your post's reward???

I tend to make a few enemies as I tend to speak the truth as I see it and maybe that is something that some parties dont want the public to know. Luckily I am not dependent on upvoting income, but others could well be and this chilling effect would mean that truths about whales will likely not come out.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Sorry, down-voted due to no value added to the system.

By the way you're not telling truth afaik.

what part is untrue?

There's no way that you are jl777, because the real jl777 got uber rich off NXT, Supernet, Waves, JINN, and IOTA. No way would the real jl777 be posting here complaining about a few measly bitcoin

I already proved I am the real jl777, what I am complaining about is not about the loss of my $350, but the systemic chilling effect whale downvotes have. As others have already posted, this has led to the downfall of other social media sites

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Relax JL, I'm joking. I'm retired, so I got plenty of time to goof off. Worked all my life you know. How is my Supernet investment coming along Mr. 7?

Only half? If u downvoted by dan, you would owe money for Steemit))

Keep in mind that if you came back after 9 hours and it was suddenly $350, it might not be because of a single down vote but instead a whale who voted for you voted for lots of other people between that time which would cause the voting power they gave you to lose power before it pays you out, hence why you don't get paid the second you get one up vote.

it was $700 and then got cut in half pretty immediately. and the unnamed whale downvoted this post too. I lost 14 cents

@abit down-voted you.

He also made a post to your original post. That explains why he down voted you.

Yeah that sucks I've been whale hammered a couple of times with no explanation and the post was doing great.. Sorry to hear it though that really does suck :(

Value is relative to the beholder. I don't think posts framed as 'complaints' are relevant in a transparent system. How do they add anything to the network? Will the system be rewarding people to complain? Come now.

Want to change the system? Appeal to a dev directly, write well thought out suggestions (but don't expect to earn money on them). Want your opinion to have a bigger monetary impact? Buy more STEEM power, or post more content that will appeal to the users with a lot of STEEM power (hence growing yours by proxy).

Alternatively, do your very best to be of benefit to the value of the network and hence all of our investments. The rest will come organically.

so you have no problems with a system that squelches any dissent of the powers that be?

Honestly, I'm here for two things.

1.) Content
2.) Money

If the powers that be deliver on these two, they can do whatever the heck they want. I don't care. Not one bit. I understand the moral standpoints you make, I try to empathise. Heck, I'm sure empaths and morally enclined holders could make a big rift in voting power. The market works both ways.

That aside. in an organic system like STEEMIT, this balance will be found. If the powers that be mess up and cause users to leave the platform, they lose on that vital content and on monetary gain as a result. The forces of the market are in control of this place. Will it be a moral market? A stone cold market? A balance? Time will tell. It's up to each of us to place a value on a post.

Sometimes a post could well be of more 'value' than an (arguably simple) meme that gets a nice $1000 of votes, but that's not a platform issue or a userbase issue, it's the market not catching up yet. Eventually, the bumps in the road will level out. Quality content will be king. A single "whale" will not make a dent on quality. No more than the forces of the market will let him or her. Going on a moral crusade against quality content for squelching reasons? It'll be an expensive squelch, considering the potential lost value that mismanagement brings.

what I describe is a special case. party A posts about party B, should the public see the assessment of everybody other than B, or everybody + B?

when B is a whale, he can literally cut the revenue in half or to zero, which for content not about B is the way it works. My point is should there be some sort of special case for this. I guess since we are allowed to upvote for ourselves, maybe to be symmetric it makes sense for B to be able to downvote.

I was just surprised that one downvote could cut the sizeable reward in half

No crusade here, just asking questions about a brand new system and possible improvements

Thank you for saying all that so I dont have to :D

That is what killed Digg and it's what is killing Reddit somewhat. With Digg, a small group of powerful users controlled the which content reached the top. Digg fell almost overnight.