HF 19 and the question of self-voting / HF 19 und die Frage bezüglich Selbstvotes

in steemit •  7 years ago  (edited)


English

I've just read a very interesting article by @dirkzett on the subject of HF 19. It was about whether it was legitimate to upvote ones own comments or not, a topic that is gaining in importance given the now four-fold higher weighting of 100 % votes. His article confirmed me in exactly the points that I have seen coming. So I decided to write a second time about this actual hardfork. I am aware of the fact that the vast majority of users really appreciates this recent platform upgrade and thus probably don't shared my concerns.

Firstly I really appreciate it that the reward curve is linear now. I know, there are also different opinions, but in my opinion this was long overdue.

Disadvantages of higher weighted upvotes


That makes it even more regrettable that the positive effect of this step has been counteracted by the increase of 100 % upvotes by a factor of 4.
In my opinion that unfortunately favors the following:

  • Self-votes became much more lucrative ... and even if in future direct self-voting will be prevented, it will still be possible by creating multiple accounts. This was previously possible as well, but without any question now it is a lot more attractive, since one has less but for times more powerful 100 % votes than before.

  • I think many users are not aware of the other disadvantage of the changes: I strongly guess and partly already could observe that those accounts with the most Steem power reserve their highly-weighted votes for each other. The reason for that is simple: anyone who upvoted 'strong' accounts can expect strong response upvotes. If you upvote "minnows", you only get 'minnow votes' in return from thankful small account holders. So from a point of view of a big account it is a much better investment to vote for other big accounts with his few high impact votes (a completely understandable, rational decision which is favored by the new rules). I fear the 'exclusive club' will be even more exclusive in future ...

Not the users who exploit it, but the system which allows that is to criticize!


Are now the self-voting people to be criticized or the mutually voting 'VIPs'? I am of the opinion that in a system that favors self-votes and reciprocal upvoting of the 'big ones', the error lies in the system itself! That should urgently be adjusted! And to be honest, for me it seems the increase of the impact of single votes was kind of a compensation for the big accounts, which lost an important privilege by flattening the reward curve ... (I may be wrong though).

I think the fast growing number of Steemit members would require the exact opposite: many small votes spread to many different users appear much more sensible than few big ones to oneself, a few friends plus a few especially influential accounts.

How to upvote now?


Recently I experimented a little bit with 1 % votes for all users without considering of whom I vote and what I have to expect to gain in return. Promptly I felt the consequences: @bleujay just had transformed a 100 % vote into an 1 % vote when he saw that I've only voted his last article with one percent. That cost me about 50 dollars (no problem @bleujay, I understand that you may have been annoyed to receive only a very small vote from me this time, but I wanted to test what happens when I treat all users the same way ... don't worry: my small vote was nothing personal). I am really still thinking about what should be the best way for me to vote in future under the new conditions ......

What are your suggestions?


And yes, so far I upvote all my articles with 100 %. How do you do that yourself? I would definitely consider it as a small step in the right direction if system would prevent self-voting, but above all, to reverse the higher weighting of 100% votes! The problem of the multiple accounts would not be solved, but maybe one could get closer to a solution by limiting the available amount of votes per time per account, so that even if one has many accounts one couldn't upvote them many times ... More ideas are needed here ... and of course you are free to criticize me - let's start the discussion! :)


Deutsch

Ich habe gerade einen in meinen Augen sehr interessanten Artikel von @dirkzett zum Thema Selbstvotes nach HF 19 gelesen. Es ging darum, ob es legitim sei, seine eigenen Kommentare upzuvoten oder nicht, ein Thema, das in Anbetracht der nun vierfach höheren Gewichtung von 100 %-Votes an Brisanz gewonnen hat. Sein Artikel bestätigte mich in genau den Punkten, die ich habe kommen sehen. Deshalb schreibe nun doch noch ein zweites Mal zur aktuell durchgeführten Hardfork. Ich bin mir dessen Bewusst, dass die weitaus meisten User dieses Systemupgrade sehr positiv aufgenommen haben und meine Befürchtungen vermutlich nicht teilen werden.

Ersteinmal finde ich es wirklich begrüßenswert, dass die Reward-Kurve jetzt linear ist. Ich weiß, auch dazu gibt es unterschiedliche Meinungen, aber das war aus meiner Sicht längst überfällig.

Nachteile höher gewichteter Upvotes


Um so bedauerlicher finde ich, dass die positive Wirkung dieses Schritts dadurch konterkariert wurde, den Einfluss einzelner Votes dermaßen heraufzusetzen.
Meiner Meinung nach wird dadurch leider Folgendes begünstigt:

  • Selbstvotes werden lukrativer ... und wenn die direkte Art, sich selbst zu voten, unterbunden wird, wird das dennoch über Mehrfachaccounts weiterhin möglich sein. Das ging zwar auch vorher schon, aber ohne jede Frage wurde es dadurch, dass einem weniger, aber viel stärker wirkende 100 %-Votes zur Verfügung stehen, deutlich reizvoller als früher.

  • Was viel weniger im Fokus steht, ist, dass ich fest davon ausgehe und es zum Teil auch schon beobachte, dass sich diejenigen Accounts mit der höchsten Steem Power ihre hochgewichteten Votes füreinander reservieren. Wer 'starke' Accounts upvoted, kann mit kräftigen Antwort-Upvotes rechnen, wer Minnows upvoted, bekommt dagegen nur 'Minnow-Rück-Upvotes" der dankbaren kleinen Accounts. Da aber nur noch wenige hochprozentige Votes zur Verfügung stehen, ist es aus Sicht der Großaccounts absolut sinnvoll-rational, sich gegenseitig zu voten: der 'exklusive Club' wird wohl zukünftig noch exklusiver ...

Nicht die User, die es ausnutzen, sondern das System, welches das ermöglicht, ist zu kritisieren!


Sind jetzt die Selbstvoter zu kritisieren oder die sich gegenseitig votenden 'VIPs'? Ich bin der Meinung, dass bei einem System, das Eigenvotes und sich gegenseitiges Voten der 'Großen' begünstigt, der Fehler im System selbst liegt! Da muss dringend nachjustiert werden! Und, um ehrlich zu sein, kommt mir die Änderung des Vote-Impacts wie eine Kompensation für die großen Accounts vor, denen durch Abflachung der Reward-Kurve ein wichtiges Privileg abhanden kam ... (ich kann auch falsch liegen mit dieser Vermutung).

Ich finde angesichts der schnell wachsenden Nutzerzahlen wäre genau das Gegenteil richtig: viele kleine Votes an viele verschiedene User erscheinen mir weitaus sinnvoller zu sein, als einige wenige hochgewichtete Votes für sich selbst, ein paar Freunde und ein paar besonders einflussreiche Accounts.

Wie votet man nun am besten?


Ich habe etwas mit 1 %-Votes für alle herum experimentiert ohne Rücksicht darauf, wen ich vote und was ich als Gegenleistung zu erwarten habe. Prompt spürte ich die Folgen: @bleujay wandelte eben ein 100 %-Vote in ein 1 %-Vote um, als er sah, dass ich seinen letzten Artikel nur mit einem Prozent gevotet hatte. Das hat mich ca. 50 Dollar gekostet (kein Problem @bleujay, ich verstehe, dass du dich vielleicht geärgert hast, von mir diesmal nur ein sehr kleines Upvote bekommen zu haben, aber ich wollte testen, was geschieht, wenn ich alle User gleich behandle ... keine Sorge, mein niedrigprozentiges Vote war nicht gegen dich persönlich gerichtet). Ich bin immer noch am Überlegen, wie ich unter den jetzigen Bedingungen zukünftig am besten voten sollte ......

Was schlagt ihr vor?


Und ja, ich vote bisher alle meine Artikel mit 100 %. Wie haltet ihr das? Ich würde es auf jeden Fall als einen kleinen Schritt in die richtige Richtung ansehen, Eigenvotes systemseitig zu unterbinden und vor allem die höhere Gewichtung 100%-iger Votes wieder rückgängig zu machen! Das Problem der Mehrfachaccounts wäre damit zwar noch nicht gelöst, aber man könnte einer Lösung näher kommen, indem man die Menge der Votes, die man pro Zeiteinheit einem bestimmten Account zukommen lassen kann, limitieren würde, so dass man zwar viele Accounts besitzen, sich aber nicht ständig damit selbst upvoten könnte ... Weitere Ideen sind hier gefragt ... und natürlich könnte ihr mich nun gerne kritiseren - lasst die Diskussion beginnen! :)

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:  

I must admit before HF 19 my upvote was worth $.08 and now it is around $2 and I've been feeling like Santa upvoting almost everyone that comments on my posts including myself. One person even called me a whale ;) lol

Maybe with my generosity people will want to view and upvote my content more which in turn means I can give more away. I'm personally having fun with this and see it as helping so many people around the world.

Some people in certain countries earn $3 per day and here with one vote I can help them. Now in your case your 100% vote is worth $44 and you can help so many more people including yourself. I think it is perfectly fine to upvote yourself so you can grow even more powerful and be able to share more.

Or maybe you see this as a retirement plan for yourself? You invest time, energy and maybe purchased steem and here you are using the system for a return on your investment. Sounds ok to me.

Yep. This is right along with the posts I promoted right before and after HF19. Yes to linear. No to voting rules changes.

Interesante Gesichtspunkte. Legitim ist alles, was nach den Regeln erlaubt ist.
Gegen den vordergründigen Egoismus gibt es weiterhin die Waffe des Flagging. Oft reicht schon die Androhung, um eine Verhaltensänderung herbeizuführen.
Wer die Plattform unterstützen will, der hat vor allem die Förderung der Neuen im Blick und wird seine VP auch dementsprechend einsetzen.
Es gilt jetzt wie früher, win-win-Strategien zu verfolgen. Wer das konsequent macht, wird am Ende siegreich sein. Ich vote immer mit 100% und damit drücke ich meine uneingeschränkte Wertschätzung aus. Daher geht meine VP zwar in Richtung 10%, aber das macht nichts.
Nach HF 19 kommt HF 20 usw.
Das System reguliert sich immer wieder in einer Wechselwirkung von kollektivem Verhalten und Regeländerungen. Also cool down.

:) Gut, dass du so oft beruhigende Worte findest. Die Welt (und auch Steemit) gehen mit HF 19 sicher nicht unter, aber ich hoffe für die Zukunft trotzdem auf sinnvolle softwareseitige Lösungen ...

Ich werde auch von den 1 %-Votes abrücken ... obwohl selbst die dem Gevoteten ca. 50 Cent bringen, wären es doch einfach zu viele Votes pro Tag. Das kann ich gar nicht leisten. Ich denke, ich werde vorläufig wohl mit 10 % bzw. 5 % pro Artikel und 1 % pro Kommentar voten.

Das Leben ist ein dynamischer Prozess! Wetten, dass wir in einem Jahr über ganz andere Probleme diskutieren?

Da hast du mit Sicherheit Recht ...

If I may conclude - at least for the moment - the discussion here and under the article you linked above, I have the impression that a certain number of users has already noticed the problem of "creating money" by self-voting but they are not happy with the situation and find it morally questionable. The question seems to be now to establish some rules (or system updates) to avoid abuse of the current situation.
Hopefully, the number of users who realize the problem and who are aware of the potential abuse will grow and so the coders are forced to react on the problem.

For multiple accounts the best solution is the ip address check. With the same ip address you cannot use two account in the last 24 hours. This is used by many other sites too.

It's easy to get around an ip address check with a proxy, and what about partners living in the same house or a student flatshare?

Instead you could run analysis on the voting data from the blockchain database to detect suspicious patterns: both voting and sbd transfers. You could make a bot that then comments when further actions of the same sort are made and 'shame them' into better behaviour.

Yup it sounds good and legit.

this is perfect idea

I'm sorry I don't understand what you are talking about; would you please elaborate further?
Describe in more detail?

Hm ... but before one thinks about technical solutions first of all there should be a consensus that multiple accounts are not allowed. Don't forget that so far they are ... and I guess many stake holders are using several accounts.
My idea is not to forbid them but limit the number of mutual upvotes within a certain time frame ...

So it does not violate the rules to have multiple accounts?

No, so far it is completely 'legal'. :)
Some whales have about 10 accounts ...

OMG this should be stopped anyway otherwise it will hurt the steemit community.

You have a very good point on the exclusive club you mentioned. I can see how they can all just vote for eachother because they will expect a vote back from someone with a big vote. Sadly I fall into the minnow category, I've only been around a week.

Thanks for your input!

Thank you for the mention @jaki01.

bleujay thought you had the right idea...
..and thought your idea a good one and followed suit.

You lead the way Mr. jaki01.

Wishing you and your family all the best. Cheers.

Nice to read from you @bleujay !
No I am not sure that my way is the best! Maybe I am wrong to spread many small votes ... but in my eyes it seemed to be most logical ...
Hope you are fine and have a great day! :)

Good to hear from you.

Did you happen to see @mindhunter's video regarding HF19. it may assist in understanding the many different approaches to this new set of circumstances.

I think it was @htooms who said it best with his bullets.

There are enough votes to go around in many spheres and there will be some here and there and everywhere.

All the best to you. Cheers.

OK, I will check that video soon, thanks for advice. :)

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Btw.: just as information: I decided not to stick with 1 % votes as in that case I simply have to vote too often. I think as soon as my voting power has fully recovered I will vote articles with 5 to 10 percent of my voting power and comments with 1 %.

Thank you @jaki01 for your reply.......and heads up. Very kind of you.

Sounds like a plan.

All the best. Cheers.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

If the system allows it and has some flaws, each member will naturally use it for his/her own benefit. Having been here for a week, I believe overall the hardfork has been useful, everyone earns more value and it gives the minnows the potential to reach a higher voting power quicker. Furthermore minnows are more "liberal" with their upvotes as they're not worth much anyway. So a large number of minnows has a greater impact than before. The whales on the other hand probably feel more concerned as they have to be wiser on how they distribute their voting power.

I believe voting everyone with the same amount as you did is probably the wisest choice (maybe not 1 percent though), unless you see something really interesting worth upvoting then afterall it's up to you on how you use your powers.

Is self-voting immoral or harmful for the site, that I don't know.

Thanks for commenting!

The whales on the other hand probably feel more concerned as they have to be wiser on how they distribute their voting power.

If a whale or a dolphin upvotes other whales and dolphins he can expect some very 'nice' upvotes in return. If he votes for minnows their vote in return is worth nothing for him. How do you think whales and dolphins will vote now as only few high impact votes are available? :)

I believe voting everyone with the same amount as you did is probably the wisest choice (maybe not 1 percent though) ...

My 1 % vote rewards you with about 50 cent ... but maybe I should vote a little bit heavier ... so far I am not sure myself what is best ...

... unless you see something really interesting worth upvoting ...

How do you define 'interesting'? Interesting because of good content or interesting because I will get a huge upvote in return if I vote for it? :)

You're welcome and thank you for replying haha, with all these comments you're a busy person.

If a whale or a dolphin upvotes other whales and dolphins he can expect some very 'nice' upvotes in return. If he votes for minnows their vote in return is worth nothing for him. How do you think whales and dolphins will vote now as only few high impact votes are available? :)

It's probably common practice for some whales and dolphins already, they stay within their bubble. However I like to believe that most are like myself and upvote depending on the post regardless of whether it's a minnow or a whale.

My 1 % vote rewards you with about 50 cent ... but maybe I should vote a little bit heavier ... so far I am not sure myself what is best ...

Yeah, I can't say either what is best. I have yet little knowledge on the matter. :)

How do you define 'interesting'? Interesting because of good content or interesting because I will get a huge upvote in return if I vote for it? :)

When you see effort has been put in it. When the content is useful or informative. When it touches you personally, by feeling... upvoting just because you have something to gain in return, I just find it lame. Instinctively the aim is to reward what is worth rewarding.

Nice if you see things like that.

IMHO, self-voting on articles is acceptable (a bit questionable for powerful accounts though) and self-voting on comments is not.

Thanks for your opinion!
I really would hope to get some input from some of the big accounts as well ...

I'm having a bit of a crisis with this that I've never really dealt with before. Yes, I upvote my own posts but I have never upvoted my comments and do not intend to start. There are a few accounts whose practices I don't approve but it's easy enough to ignore them. To each their own, right?

Sure, but what if more and more people start are doing it?
Look for example here: https://steemit.com/@sandrino (writing ten minimal posts per day(!), but upvoting them all with nearly 50 dollar). That is absolutely legal, but is it good for Steemit? The problem got bigger since the four times stonger 100 % votes of HF 19.

I'm not afraid to give 100% to anyone because I know there are so many changes that are coming to this platform if not now but very soon. There are too many defects to ignore and I expect it to be resolved soon. Yes I love the huge payout who doesn't , but somethings need fixing and how this benefits newbies I'm not to sure.

I don't know how to convince someone to join steemit if people are not voting dependant on quality.

I guess you voting someone 1% as a test proved my case.

I learnt alot from your post and it's a problem that needs fixing. I love reading and I love upvoting and I love giving 100% to those who deserve it and honestly many people do.

The problem is that if you vote with 100 % you have fewer votes.
So what is better: to vote 10 times with 100 % or to vote 1000 times with 1 % (or 100 times with 10 % - assumed that there is a completely linear correlation)? :-)

Yes I understand what you are saying but we can't go voting everyone 1% or even 10%.

Some deserve 50% some deserve 70% and others 100%

I want to vote a lot but what I don't want is to vote someone less than they deserve.

Now great content writers and early steemians with large following just switched to 1% but are giving themselves 25% to 50% irrespective of whether someone deserves it or not which I think is a major problem.

I struggle to give 100% to everyone now so I am thinking about switching my voting power. However if there is a quality post that deserves more then there should be like a switchover a favourite system where people who you usually vote higher get that same amount. Hmmmm

Don't forget that not only the percentage of your voting power matters but also the Steem power of the voter. If for example I give you 1 % that means a reward of about 50 cent ... So why shouldn't I spread many times 50 cent instead of 10 times 50 dollar?

Yes , for you it's fine for me it's not so fine, as I'm a new user so me giving 100% gives like 0.05$ probably.

Most users are new or building, how do we expect them to evolve.

Don't get me wrong I completely agree with you in some aspects I'm just trying to grasp how this will help people like myself who are fairly new grow at a quicker rate.

If I switched to 1% I might be giving away less than a cent.

So what advice would you give bare in mind I have been buying SP ever since I've become a member so I am slowly racking it up. My account is worth quiet Abit. But as it grows do I reduce my SP or do I reduce it now?

Would love your thoughts on this,, and for anyone reading who might know more would love your opinion guys.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Why would you reduce your Steem power? For now I would just let it grow at your place so that your votes will have more and more influence.

Btw.: I also will not stick with 1 % votes as in that case I simply have to vote too often. I think as soon as my voting power has fully recovered I will vote articles with 5 to 10 percent of my voting power and comments with 1 %.

your thoughts and discussion make me understand better the steemit could face. I really like the idea to just split the voting power by the quality of posts. Steemit seems to be really dynamic network which could react fast on not fair staff. I hope and believe it should be stopped as soon as possible. The example of sandrino is terrible. You cannot actually flag those posts? Or to make it stop with the current mechanism? Or it is really purely legal and nobody cares?

Yes, I in this case think somebody should flag sandrino before payout! You could also spread the information about his misbehavior by sharing that link to his account:
https://steemit.com/@sandrino
Then more Steemians will know about that. Unfortunately Steemit Chat isn't working.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

That is the best response you have given me yet! I did not think about it separately ... Will keep it going to see where this takes me. I'm just waiting to recharge myself have been empty to long.

Ich muss dir wieder einmal zustimmen. Um es einmal aus meiner Sicht zusammenzufassen:

  • Prinzipiell finde ich linear rewards gut
  • Das Heraufsetzen der Stärke der 100 % Votes sehe ich ebenfalls problematisch
  • Selbst-Votes werden wohl immer einen faden Beigeschmack haben. Im Sinne von "Ihh... schau dir den mal an. Der hält sich wohl für was ganz Tolles und votet ständig seinen eigenen Kram hoch".
  • Das Problem des exklusiven Clubs wird in Zukunft noch größer werden. Eine Idee um gegenzusteuern könnte vielleicht sein eine Art Negativ-Feedback in Relation zur SP des gevoteten Accounts einzuführen. Etwa im Sinne von: Voter SP hoch + Gevoteter SP niedrig = Hohe Gewichtung des Votes, Voter SP niedrig + Gevoteter SP niedrig = Hohe Gewichtung des Votes, Voter SP hoch + Gevoteter SP hoch = Niedrige Gewichtung des Votes, Voter SP niedrig + Gevoteter SP hoch = Neutrale Gewichtung des Votes. Das aber nur mal so als schnelle Idee. Vielleicht hätte das auch andere ungewollte Konsequenzen, die ich jetzt so flugs nicht bedacht habe.
  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Dass jemand sich durch Selbstvoten "toll" findet (bzw. als "toll" ausgibt), ist m. E. ein weniger großes Problem, aber hinsichtlich einer sinnvollen Verteilung der Rewards - und damit der zukünftigen Entwicklung Steemits - dürfte es sich sehr negativ auswirken, wenn das in immer größerem Ausmaß geschieht (was zu erwarten ist, weil es seit HF 19 extrem begünstig wird und viel reizvoller ist als vorher).

Bezüglich deines zweiten Vorschlags sehe ich es eher so, dass eine lineare Reward-Kurve gemeinsam mit der Rückgängigmachung der "Vierfach-Vote-Regelung" fast schon ausreichen sollten. Wünschenswert wären m. E. außerdem eine softwareseitige Unterbindung von Selbstvotes und möglicherweise noch eine Beschränkung der Anzahl von Votes, die man pro Zeiteinheit einem einzelnen Account zukommen lassen kann.

Nice post, interesting sometimes I feel that way too that big accounts votes for big accounts too so they can have good returns too. But anyway i dont mind it I know steemit would be a really good opportunity for everyone.

With a better system it would be better for the average user ... therefore I do care. :)

Yes followed you :)

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Slightly disagree with your assumption that all will vote only for top users to get their voice instead.

it's a lot harder to become visible for some whale, who will vote for you in return, than to receive recognition from minnows which will gradually grow (with your help too).

I think many people understand this, so they try to build relationships with all members of the community.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Thanks for your opinion. :)
Let's hope you will be right, but so far I am not convinced ... We will see what happens (and of course I am not a clairvoyant as well :) ... But if you check the voting behavior of some minnows (for example using SteemDB) you may come to the same conclusion like I do: they are upvoting articles from the trending page and well known users much more frequently than posts of other minnows (this is becoming even more obvious if you compare the huge number of minnows with the small number of 'VIPs' who nevertheless get a big percentage of the votes).
Many minnows try to build relationships by commenting ... but often they are not voting on articles, because (besides of other reasons) all their available voting power is already exhausted.

And apart from that for the "top users" it is also much more lucrative to spend their few heavy votes for some of their 'colleagues' to get some nice reward back ...

Indeed, today the situation looks that way, I am sure that you are right in your observations. Perhaps, my previous replay was of the sort "dream out loud" :)

Good post and required discussion, not elaborating my views in details on any issues in public anymore since I know my views are watched. Simply to see what can be used against me again, instead of supporting more important things or criticizing real shit - but that is life.

Good post around the topic here: https://steemit.com/steemit/@intelliguy/to-vote-yourself-up-or-not-to-vote-yourself-up-that-s-the-question

Thanks for pointing out that interesting article @uwelang !

My pleasure

Your a pro bro !!!!

Kudos for this revelations,to me upvoting self can be easily curtailed by developing bots that will easily spam self voting thereby restricting the act.The authorities have a big role to play in this,turning a blind eye to this acts could be devastating in the long run. Steemit integrity is paramount

Upvoted, great article ! Please upvote my new article, share, follow, thanks ! https://steemit.com/steemit/@cryptomonitor/ready-for-7-inch-windows-laptop

I just upvoteed ALL of your posts an ALl of your comments giving you like 4 to 3 cents each :)

Great, thanks, that will help me to produce more quality articles on Stemmit !

Is it possible to prevent users from voting for themselves?

Right now: No. In the future: Maybe; that's open for discussion.

i think the update is great, self voting just does not make sense, this is not facebook !!

Why does self-voting make no sense? If I upvote myself 10 times a day I get 500 dollar for free. Is that OK or not? What is your opinion?

I think that the idea of Steemit is that the readers or 'the followers' can upvote ( Reward ) the content they love and want to support ! If I can upvote myself and earn money i will do it the whole day but I personally think that it's not fair, this is just my opinion, I respect your opinion if it's different !

You are coming to the point now: it is possible but seems not to be moral ... therefore I am of the opinion that the system should at least not favor such a behavior ... However (that's of course only my personal point of view) after HF19 it is much more tempting to upvote oneself ... Not a step in the right direction ...

That's true, HF20 maybe ? Let's wait

By the way I didn't want to appear as if I have a great solution. I am also not sure what is best ... I am just not really happy with the current state.

I know, thank you for sharing your opinion buddy :)

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I am a minnow and it has just been one week since i joined steemit. HF19 also came at that time, so i think i m not in a position to discuss its merits and demerits. From reading your post being a minnow, i feels the selfvoting thing gives indeed a supreme strategy to the big fishes. Maybe it will slow down the growth of minnows indirectly. But all whales are not much concerned about mutual voting, those who enjoys the community will try to upvote according to the content, for those who feels steemit is a treasure box may get involved in making multiple accounts and voting from other accounts indeed. I think there must proper limits layed for upvoting, maybe it would be better if the limits increase with reputation level. Why should whales have all the fun?, let minnows also enjoy. And i feels serious thinking must me held against holding multiple accounts, why is it legal? I agree that making it illegal doesn't stop it fully, but it will stop it to some extent indeed.
Thanks for sharing .

This is very good thinking, and I have recently posted almost identical thoughts regarding how high SP holdings really require those accounts to self vote. It's merely prudence and fiscal responsibility on their part.

However, as long as VP is weighted by SP, that will remain the case.

The only solution I have conceived is to let everyone's vote equally reward content. Either that, or weight votes by reputation, which has the advantage over SP of being a community approval rating, which has a sound basis for being a source of weighting.

Many object that without weighting votes by SP, investors will have no reason to maintain their holdings. This isn't true, or no cryptocurrencies would be held at all. Investors stake their capital in order to achieve a gain, and Steem is exactly the same as any other capital market.

Steemit, otoh, is not a capital market, and causing investment capital to affect curation negatively impacts curation. Votes are often cast to gain capital in the present system, rather than to reward great writing, or promote good ideas, and as long as SP weights votes, that will be the case.

You have a new follower.

Interesting thoughts!
(Sorry I just noticed them now, so that upvoting your comment wouldn't result in a reward anymore.)

I'm far more invested in gaining more insight into the issue than I am upvotes =)

I hope to benefit from any considerations you might arrive at from the discussion.

Thanks for letting me know there are still folks gaining insight on this here.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Hi !
-100% : The reward is only Steam Power
-50/50% : Half of reward is Steam Power and other half is Steam Dollars
-Decline Payout : You are not rewarded

If you have other question, ask me ;)

This was not my question: the question was about if it is morally inoffensive to upvote oneself or not (especially concerning own comments).

I don't see a problem with people using the Steem Power they have earned/bought to upvote themselves.

Obviously the bigger the account, the more questions one will receive.

Morally not an issue.

Is the activity of self-voting good for the platform? I don't think many people will come to SteemIt to watch a group of people vote and self-vote for themselves and each other. Who knows, it is a balance we are trying to find. :)

Interesting post.

OK, we already see that many comments mean many different opinions. I linked the article of @dirkzett who upvoted his own comments after what another user told him to him flag him if he wouldn't stop doing that. We see the topic is rather complicated ...

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I've already tried to upvote me and I've seen a drop in the value of the upvote.

I have followed you, can you follow me back ?

And I have just upvoted my article and now you can see a potential payout of estimated 44 dollar. It is a matter of Steem power. But is it morally OK to upvote oneself after hardfork 19?

Sorry but what's the "hardfork 19" ?

Just read some articles here:
https://steemit.com/trending/hardfork19

What a great post @jaki01

Thanks. :)

i was kind of confuse wastching this story, does more upvote can also be the disadvantage or, we need more followers in steemit.com gor ur more
$$$$.

The problem is that you have less upvotes available now than before ...