Is there a limit to self-voting with delegated Steem Power?

in steemit •  7 years ago  (edited)

If I sold you a flask and instead of filling it with water, you decided to smash someone's face in with it, am I at fault?

So what's with all the finger pointing at @blocktrades, @freedom, @smooth, etc?

These accounts are providing a service, just like Walmart are when supplying flasks, and they cannot be held responsible for what the buyer does with the product.

At 3:30 am Central Time this morning (12/12/2017), @blocktrades had a total of 3,828,944.053 Steem Power leased out to 575 Accounts.

Would you like to spend your time monitoring the activity of this number of accounts?

We have the right to highlight major wrong-doings, but not to point the finger at the salesperson - as in the right hands this product for sale can raise the community to the stars.


title.jpg
source


In data we trust?

I'm going to assume from this point that the key metric in deciding if an account is using their delegated Steem Power appropriately is the self-voting of their own content.

To spare you all the complete list, the accounts have been filtered to show only the accounts voting for themselves more than 16.7% of the time.

Why 16.7%?

Why not?.. Here, we hit the first issue... What is an acceptable Self-voting percentage?

100%? 50%? 20%? 0%? 'Well it depends if I'm paying for my SP or not so screw you %'?

I chose 16.7% because it is the average self-voting percentage (over the past 7 days) of 6 household names you may recognize:

Account7 day Self-vote %Owns delegated SP
@acidyo20.9%Yes
@aggroed13.3%No
@blocktrades2.7%No
@good-karma23.5%Yes
@kingscrown28.5%Yes
@stellabelle11.2%No

Ummm... anyway, moving swiftly on to the list, which is ordered by Self-vote percentage over the past 7 days:

NamePostsVotesUniqueSelfSelf-Vote %
@ivanmendes13790090100.0%
@bechir078078100.0%
@aboutall6565065100.0%
@mrprive045045100.0%
@somenathsen2122022100.0%
@cryptorainforest910010100.0%
@diosarich1010010100.0%
@crystalblue0404100.0%
@cheihuey0101100.0%
@criptotradingesp1101100.0%
@firary644524497.8%
@rymlen45114510793.9%
@ismailsteem12116410086.2%
@th1nkfast05885086.2%
@cura293732978.4%
@maaz2382231777.3%
@dortkdortm71321076.9%
@tony101582136376.8%
@innavtsh121641275.0%
@valikos792226873.9%
@adrianobalan896117072.9%
@austinhopper23182271.0%
@booster007080125670.0%
@fl32biz15135399469.6%
@tanmoybanerjee881581911069.6%
@hassanabid207144969.0%
@red-rose293282422668.9%
@kwalker193092066.7%
@ehabfox1489205966.3%
@kawsardj134743166.0%
@jahangirbalti2596196365.6%
@ranjithpvrp555123665.5%
@mpraveen3254123564.8%
@jorlenbolivar42141189164.5%
@cryptomaker3388235562.5%
@davidpakman3664203960.9%
@abdo00142351460.9%
@jesca352360.0%
@beautifulbullies16112326759.8%
@alamin0263341896410756.6%
@ak2154370203854.3%
@sayee1795405153.7%
@shagor0168216083253.3%
@itsyeboy9171952.9%
@tipu851619226952.1%
@vipins19145507451.0%
@abdelhamidtsouli3787114450.6%
@siswadi65168458248.8%
@lasper9144337048.6%
@aldokhan204262047.6%
@csteemit5197947.4%
@iliasdiamantis0155587347.1%
@yusifm485354047.1%
@dexterslab547132246.8%
@xyz666123466215946.0%
@aksakal1737151745.9%
@pouchon268283145.6%
@nazirkhyber133191445.2%
@learnandgrow7158257144.9%
@momar116252743.5%
@sames267172943.3%
@sdwahine14102474443.1%
@johnlubb2145642.9%
@bi5h0p074342.9%
@alextuteu47155326642.6%
@mars91740181742.5%
@hanitasteemer1164236942.1%
@jassi1339111641.0%
@tezz31153240.0%
@brothermic9153676139.9%
@tonygreene1139202698039.6%
@kettleyer188183337.5%
@phillip20287283236.8%
@nazarwills1496443536.5%
@altafalazzam9121414436.4%
@waqasahmad911570182535.7%
@wix373112635.6%
@wajahatsardar18217487434.1%
@gotgame4191596534.0%
@sumeet96961677242633.8%
@skreza8213937133.3%
@deemmosqueda2185272832.9%
@ksumma371442332.4%
@theleapingkoala571232332.4%
@reaverza206332031.7%
@iamericmorrison2573282331.5%
@torquewrench19694116433631.0%
@psychopumpkin227192231.0%
@mrblu9163355030.7%
@smidge-tv15123253730.1%
@razack-pulo8281868429.9%
@raheelkhan15116885029.8%
@hairflare7159194729.6%
@minnowsteemwin70167794929.3%
@karanchahal1466331928.8%
@joeuhw49171604928.7%
@alfa-good32135623828.1%
@theduke2964211828.1%
@pegarissimo1143271227.9%
@farihelper754131527.8%
@nokodemion10137803827.7%
@onthewayout1106352927.4%
@jackjohanneshemp19139423827.3%
@kerry234752111426.9%
@globetrottergcc2739510710526.6%
@razu788664291726.6%
@wargof1662301625.8%
@cryptodecript042125.0%
@nafion141125.0%
@cryptopassion44144373524.3%
@steaknsteem17132163224.2%
@intelliguy379491924.1%
@ygriffiny14169734023.7%
@tarikhakan551789392123.6%
@thediyworld8145383423.4%
@sardrt14262906022.9%
@arushkandra513843122.5%
@omar-hesham6123682722.0%
@enchantedspirit887281921.8%
@flamingbot274141621.6%
@robin-ho28130132821.5%
@cdemon06621421.2%
@coolgbd23318721.2%
@abhishek771167321420.9%
@alonetime22106592220.8%
@dhouse3126502620.6%
@bahadirk136381320.6%
@adnanrabbani6182563720.3%
@sharif241194341920.2%
@phillip20steem265271320.0%
@foma1712516520.0%
@badol19942796521919.8%
@hmushtaq13157513119.7%
@onart5180463519.4%
@phenombot474141418.9%
@mers1053271018.9%
@dianna11086651618.6%
@roziansyah23787491618.4%
@orionsbeltbuckle2109432018.3%
@petrmisan31164853018.3%
@as3153324618.2%
@briggsy283251775918.2%
@nandas4138362518.1%
@bitbulls4106381917.9%
@artpoet3108561917.6%
@lefactuoscope42921517.2%
@iyanpol1221122422117.2%
@jovema3290321516.7%
@ebin25426916.7%
@vigneshvinay53624616.7%
@dogewm4248416.7%
@francosteemvotes165116.7%

At the top, we have 10 accounts who have not looked outside their (probably) average content, and are only voting for themselves.

Any argument here that this isn't abuse? Not by many I would have thought.

47 accounts are voting over half the time for themselves - do we then set the bar here?

No? Where then?

When we have accounts paying for their delegated Steem Power, its a little harder than wielding the @fulltimegeek axe when making a decision on what's right and wrong.


On a brighter note, 124 accounts paying for delegated Steem Power from @blocktrades haven't cast a single vote on themselves in the past 7 days.

@buildawhale, the largest delegate, is one of these accounts with 0% vote to self. Does that make you think a little differently about bid-bots?


What's the plan then?

Raise awareness is something we can all do.

We can also argue discuss what is acceptable or not and present a general view to the likes of @blocktrades.

Maybe he could then set a ruling: 'Self-voting with over 50% of delegated Steem Power will result in loan termination.'

And then we will no doubt see a host of the accounts in the above list sitting in the 45% zone.

If an 'abuse' percentage wasn't stated at the time of the arrangement and @blocktrades took his own opinion, or the community consensus when terminating a lease, would this work at all?

I can see trouble with both options.

And, did i mention multiple accounts and voting rings? Sigh..


@blocktrades @spaminator @patrice - if you want a regular list like this let me know.

To everyone else, is this solvable?

Cheers

Asher @abh12345

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:  

everyone self-vote.. just few gets caught.. cheating is great as long as you don't get caught

I've self voted in the past but haven't lately as I'm a curator who is seeking sp delegations. I also don't use bid bots. I'll admit though, i often feel like I'm wasting time by NOT doing this, as i haven't really seen any benefit to not self voting or using bid bots up to today. I've been maybe mentioned once for not self voting, but it hasn't resulted in any delegations. I think self votes should be limited to once per 24 hours.

One 100% upvote is 10% of your voting power per day. I agree with this for large SP holders. Minnows voting percentages don't matter too much unless they are trying to prove themselves a good candidate for delegation. I think somebody getting delegated to for a lower price than they get from curation should vote less than 5% for themselves. (I haven't been very responsible about this myself lately but I plan on holding myself more accountable.) That would mean 50% of one full upvote per day. The reason I think a delegate profiting from curation rewards should vote less for themselves than the owner is because there is less incentive for them to be responsible since they are not invested themselves, and so they need to be held more accountable than a whale who potentially loses capital value by abusing the system.

Self voting is such a perplex thing to look at. Our Community @steemthat actively discouraged self voting with the help of @trump3t only to find nothing but a few cents as a return. Almost everyone, spare a few is self-voting. There should be a limit to it, yes everything insane is not positive to the community. Very nice and in depth analysis by @abh12345 , really appreciated. Keep up the good work going.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I think self votes should be limited to once per 24 hours.

9 more personal accounts for many would appear quite quickly if this was introduced :)

Yeah i agree, not sure how we limit or decide what is considered abuse and what isn't. It's a tricky subject. I feel most of those at the very top of the post are very active community leaders on Steemit, so they aren't hurting the platform in my opinion.

Yes, they could be considered as to be 'earning' their self-votes by being very active and providing value to the community.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

This is not necessarily a good indicator, as a witch hunt on self-voting (and it would be a witch hunt) would prompt some to create other accounts, post their scat photos there to upvote, and then wash the money through an exchange and then back to their main account.

The other point of contention is that 17% seems like a random number. Maybe I'm looking at the 18% number beside my name and just wondering why it matters, but I believe these kinds of shame lists in a public place (especially on a blockchain platform where posts are permanent) are not the best way to go about sticking one's nose in everyone else's business. If Dan decided to create such a list and make it public on blocktrades blog or his website, I wouldn't have a problem as he is the one doling out delegated steem power and would probably do it in much better taste. But if you want to create a witch hunt, this is the best way to go about it, and it will not end well for the community as a whole.

Plus consider this, what percentage of my Steem Power is delegated and what percentage is mine? For me i own about 26% of my current total Steem Power, yet I'm on a shame list for upvoting myself ~18%. This is what I mean by witch hunt.

I believe the better approach is to put effort into finding obvious spam or plagiarized content, and flagging it. @cheetah and some whales already do us this service quite well. Maybe giving an option to flag something as spam that is separate from the general "flag" option, where it's quick and easy would suffice. An author would be notified (but not reveal who clicked the "this is spam" button), and they could dispute it. If the post was found not to be spam by a moderator if disputed, then whoever flagged the post as spam would lose reputation. This at least could stop the asshats from falsely flagging, while getting the community to work towards cleaning up all the spam.

Do I believe it's wrong to self upvote? no, or the option would not be there. Is it any of my business if someone out there is 100% self upvoting? never, and it is especially outside of ethical boundaries to post a shame list. Doing so should only be a last resort to target the worst offenders who litter the site with garbage and make an example of them. Making a public list like this is a sign of a malfunctioning conscience, especially on a platform like Steem where you cannot erase it. Maybe consider trying something else before you attract the wrong kind of attention. Some people love witch hunts, and they also happen to be the kind of people who will slit your throat for a sandwich. Consider your actions on Steemit carefully.

Annnnd, a self-voted comment to top it off.

Consider you(r) actions on Steemit carefully.

I have, have you?

which helps move it up to be seen. its how the real world works, and always will.

I don't see comments by scrolling up and down my blogs. I look at 'replies', and I don't miss many as you can see.

This data is accessible to all with a basic knowledge of SQL. If you don't wish to appear on this type of list, then you know what to do.

The issue for you is 2000+ SP which you have likely purchased. The cost of this for a new user is unlikely to be returned without this self-voting exercise.

Good luck.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

But I'm not replying to you necessarily. Its for discussion with others as well. Dictating how others use their own money and time is narcissistic when done in this manner. And, 26% of my Steem Power is my own, yet on the list I self upvoted 18%. as I said: witch hunt. This kind of behavior is textbook and creates a negative environment overall. There are better ways to go about it.

Good luck in your witch hunt.

Thanks for sharing the problem and backing it up with facts. The easiest solution would be just to eliminate the possibility of self voting. Sad that some of the names on there don't surprise me.

I'm afraid this wont solve the issue as alt accounts can easily be generated.

The solution is not easy to find, and I guess there is always scope for foul play, at least in some eyes.

You got a 17.85% upvote from @postpromoter courtesy of @abh12345!

What Steemit needs right now is clear and present guidance to new users on what to do and how to do it, it really does not help that there are considerable amounts of high end users promoting the platform externally by stating people can make $100's per day just by blogging - and then everyone wonders why the new list is cluttered with internet scraped cut and paste content and recycled pictures. I still do not understand what Steemit is about and how I can help it grow - I'm sure the information in the white papers is out there but let's make it easy for people to see - when you try to post content add a click box that says I have read the white paper and include a link to it - most won't look at the link but at least it is a start. Steemit needs new, unique and quality content - to gain it the platform needs to guide the users on how to do this - it's not obvious to new accounts - if they are drawn in by claims of earning money for posting content then they will do that - let's be a little more specific and try to encourage the creativity everyone has inside them to come out.

Returning to the actual post, self voting to me seems rather inconsequential - I have read many posts by the users mentioned in list 1 and their posts are quality and inspirational - they should upvote their own work because it sets a standard for others to follow.

As far as list 2 goes, upvoting yourself only without sharing with anyone else, that's a clear drain on the reward pool and not what Steemit should be about . If accounts 100% upvote themselves with no external comments then they are obviously just automated and need restricting - if people think they can also earn by doing nothing they will try to find a way to replicate it.

Steemit inc. STINC as some like to call it :) Has no guidance toward content, they just provide the Blockchain for us to create on.

I would estimate 100,000k+ has been earned writing user 'guides' for 'how to Steemit' in the past year, 300/400 by myself.

The list one was purely to pluck a number out of the air, I follow all of these accounts and greatly enjoy what they do.

As for some of the accounts on the 2nd list..... no comment :)

You have collected your daily Power Up! This post received an upvote worth of 0.21$.
Learn how to Power Up Smart here!

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

These accounts are providing a service, just like Walmart are when supplying flasks, and they cannot be held responsible for what the buyer does with the product.

If a gunsmith or public arms dealer sells weapons to a person who then uses that weapon to commit a terrorist act or a murder crime, no technically this is not the responsibility of the person who sold the weapon. However, if this person wants to continue working in this industry and not have their industry further regulated due to public disapproval of the use of such weapons, then they can take responsibility and do their due diligence when background checking a customer. They can even refuse a customer if they believe they do more harm than good to the future of their business and industry.

Why did you have to mention guns!

What if the account has no previous? Are they to be refused?

IMO action cannot be taken prior to committing an offence. 'We' can help regulate and monitor though.

Well the difference between gun regulation and steem delegation is you actually can wait for the offense before retracting the weaponry. With gun control it's hit or miss for the dealer, they can't blame themselves for what their customer did if they believe they did their due diligence. But a steem delegator can just undelegate and say "sorry mate, but this SP is more valuable to me as the owner than it is to you as the renter"

So do you think blocktrades should be allowed to undelegated SP that is paid for when he disagrees with it's use?

What would you say was misuse?

Misuse is any sort of antisocial behaviour that would deter people from using the social network. Self voting is not the worst kind of antisocial behaviour, but it is one. And it depends how much as outlined in your post. Everything in moderation. Too much of anything is bad for you, or at least, that was the case when it was the SP owners self voting. When it is a delegate it isn't bad for you unless there is the potential for the delegation to be removed. It is still bad for the delegators investment though, but perhaps the payment for the delegation makes up for that and the value no longer matters so much.

As far as I'm concerned the people paying for delegation currently have every reason to abuse it, since they are being over charged and not gaining anything by being social with it.

You should be a politician :p I think the answers to my questions were in there somewhere?!

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Haha, I think it is in the interest of everyone including @blocktrades to be more responsible about who he delegates to and what behaviours he can expect based on how much they have to pay. However, I can see that even if the network suffers, he still profits from this business. So who am I to judge? The code has been written in a way that does not lead to decentralisation as it was originally intended. For that reason, it's not something I would invest in.

Obviously he is allowed to undelegate after a week if somebody is paying week by week. Whether or not he should depends on what he cares more about. The future or the short term.

Do you think self-voting would reduce if the rates were lowered?

Thank you so much @abh12345 for raising this numbers. Because YES In data we trust!

That's the Blockchain Technology Beauty..... Theses datas are impossible to have in our society (about our politics for example)... so I can't thank you enough to bring this kind of datas here on Steem. Maybe one day we will be able to implement this technology in our cities and countries to check our politics !

The others problems is that theses people who selfupvotes themself have probably mutliples accounts where they also votes for... :-/

If investors see that... they will probably not invest their money on Steem (except to selfvotes themself and see the short term profit :-/)

My pleasure @roxane, thanks for stopping by :)

The comments in the blog I quite mixed about the subject. Some dislike the idea and others say 'they can choose what they want to do'. I suppose it's a matter of how your conscience is when the day is done - some self-voters clearly lose no sleep over this!

Multiple accounts to self-vote are very difficult to track, I'm not sure we can ever solve this problem.

On the bright side, there are many good people using their stake responsibility, and this is what we should try to focus on as much as possible. Thanks for your comments! :)

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

By the way, @abh12345, have you seen the article about some changes made for the HF20 and written by @penguinpablo ? This will change this a bit in a better way :-) Fingers Crossed !!!

No i have not, thanks for the link. I'll go take a look!

As a new Steemian this is a very interesting read. The content is solid and the argument made for both pros and cons. The comments were fair but went according to each Steemians belief which is all good and fair as that is our choice as humans. Personally in my gut I would not up vote myself, that, to me would be the same as cheating on your own test when you are trying to be honest or say I am giving up smoking but behind closed doors I am having a cigarette.

But each to his own I always say in the end if enough people are bothered by it they will stop supporting and up voting/cash reward (sorry still learning .....lol) and the said perpetrator will be left to the wind and learn something constructive out of their en devour and choice.

But to me supporting my neighboring Steemian gives me much more value, credit and follower, this to me is where the value lies not the $ value, because in the end of the day that is why they are up voting themselves .......... isn't it?

Thanks for taking the time to make a lengthy response.

I'm glad to hear you talk with morals and hope you do well here!

Thank you so much for the response, to be honest and again this is not to flame or troll, in my mind if you are going to respond to a post make it worthwhile with some substance or whats the point. If you do not have anything to add then don't say anything.

Apologies again if I have offended someone it is my opinion and I am just a human :-)

I think they only way to change it is by adjusting thencuration rewards. In a healthy economy the move should move around. It's not really doing that when people are self upvoting so much.

I don't think we can ever control self voting manually. The rules have to be changed so that people change the behavior with the right incentive.

That's my take

As in, you cant gain rewards by voting for yourself?

2/3/4/5th accounts (or an inside deal) can slip around that easily.

cheers!

Yea I mean u still get more
By self voting. But you have to give to get and if I get 50 percent when giving instead of 25 percent it makes it easier to vote more for others.

I always say this is like leasing a taxi for a day, you can decide to carry passengers all day or only move around with it. The choice is yours. Since the terms and conditions of the lease did not signify what to do with it.

A nice analogy :)

We are the residents of the city and are mindful of careless driving!

To prevent a hit and run situation. I understand.

yes indeed! :D

Paid delegation would require self-voting to recover the cost.. If someone gets free delegation he wouldn't mind spreading around but for paid delegation the person is making an investment so he must first break-even then make some profit and later he may think of doing some social welfare.. so don't blame the ones for self-voting.. rather stop the trade.

Or reduce the costs. Perhaps pay with money earned on curation?

Self-vote limits or not. I upvote my own article. No matter if I publish 1,2 or 3 per 24 hours. However, my upvotes are worth about $0,04 and I do believe that my content are worth at least that much.

That being said, if my upvotes would've been worth $50 or something like that instead, I would probably still upvote all my articles I publish, but I would not upvote my comments. And I never do that now either.

However, if my upvotes would be worth ~$50, I would probably not upvote at 100% on all articles I publish. I would most likely upvote with 33.33% in case I knew I would publish three articles. So I'd basically give myself one 100% vote per day I published content. No matter if I spread it on multiple articles or not.

What I personally don't like with all these delegations from freedom, is the fact that most people are using the power to run their own vote-businesses. The self-votes aren't the biggest issue in my opinion. All the vote-businesses are.

I support up-voting your own top level posts, some of mine have taken 10+ hours of coding.

An you yourself also put in a great deal of time into your stuff so yes, $.04 I don't see an issue there!

I'm a bit at a loss with it all, hence today's image and caption! :D

You write about not very pleasant things, at the risk of getting a weighty flag from un-satisfied whales. And I like it. Because it makes Steemit the best. Good luck to you and good.

You assume whales read my content sir :D

And besides, there is much data I see that I wouldn't speak of in a blog, just incase!

It seems to me that there is a possibility that they are reading your posts.

There has been a strong argument among some people on the matter of delegating sp, but I see nothing wrong with people who provide these services, because like you said, what you do to your flask is left to you.

There are some people whose self voting alone will help a minnow somewhere.

I don't really have much sp but I have a large community of newbie from Nigeria, to help my growing community I rent sp to help those who have been putting effort into posting quality content. With the growing population of steemit, spotting goof post will be difficult for whales who wants to help

I personally don't understand those who a lot of SP from the service. As I understand, it costs a lot, far more than the self voting rewards plus curation rewards, you get from those rented SP. Then what's the major point of renting SP?

The bots wouldn't be here if it wasn't profitable to rent SP with Steem.

At the prices though, it's tough to make a profit without voting for yourself or selling votes.

With Steem at it's current price to SBDs, I think now is as good a time as any to rent though :)

Yep. Do you think it would change by setting the acceptable percentage? If one cannot vote 100%, they may create a new account and move the upvote business there. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic about this issue.

It's likely other accounts would be created I think. These can be harder to spot for sure.

It can be quite a downer to think about, that's why we also have plenty of uplifting posts to read too!

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Great topic, I like this post, very good job
Thanks for sharing

Qurator
Your Quality Content Curator
This post has been upvoted and given the stamp of authenticity by @qurator. To join the quality content creators and receive daily upvotes click here for more info.

Qurator's exclusive support bot is now live. For more info click HERE or send some SBD and your link to @qustodian to get even more support.

Can you imagine how it would look like on Steemit if the self-upvoting wouldn't be allowed? You are certainly capable of making such type of analysis - how much less some accounts would earn on a post then and also to include the interlinked accounts. And what effect would that have on overall performance on Steemit. I guess, the results might be interesting.

You got a 93.48% upvote from @allaz courtesy of @abh12345!

@abh12345, you just received an 25.62% upvote powered by smartsteem. Our goal is to support quality posts and authors on steem.

We offer vote-bidding (whitelist-only), vote-buying and vote-selling. Join the community: https://smartsteem.com

You got a 51.02% upvote from @votebuster courtesy of @abh12345!

Sneaky Ninja Attack! You have been defended with a 6.37% vote... I was summoned by @abh12345! I have done their bidding and now I will vanish...Whoosh

You got a 1.92% upvote from @upme requested by: @abh12345.
Send at least 1.5 SBD to @upme with a post link in the memo field to receive upvote next round.
To support our activity, please vote for my master @suggeelson, as a STEEM Witness