I didn't really believe in abuse of the rewards until I saw @dayu borrow 80k SP from @minnowbooster to self-vote 100% spam comments. That's just a loss for everyone here.
So I think we need algo changes to disincentivize the worst kinds selfish behavior. Perhaps ones that make repetitive voting less profitable.
On the other hand, I have a real distain for the marxist/wealth distribution suggestions I read here from time to time. Guess how much stake these users have in the system?
Steemit mirrors the real world, shaming SJW's and all. It's all part of the game.
...and don't get brainwashed into thinking it's not a game.
xD
Good point. In your opinion, how do you stop the abuse....by stopping the self voter or the person enabling that self voting? I know it's a complicated issue...but feels like everyone is jumping on the self voter and ignoring the people providing the services that enable that behavior.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That implementation is becoming suggested more and more, but i'm only in favor as a last resort when there's no better way. First we should look at voting incentives, for example in the form of a different curation reward scheme or something.
And going back to 0.5% (or at least for comments) is worth looking at.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I very much like the idea of increasing the curation reward percentage to the point where randomly cast votes, equate to the gain from pure self-voting. Can anyone work out what this would be? @calamus056? I haven't got my head around the rewards structure well enough yet.
At this point there would be no significant amount of self-voting, as it would take marginal effort to get greater profit with a cursory glance to evaluate content before up-voting it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit