— SteemCN

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

Interesting that you cut off the list at # 10. Guess who is # 13? That would be @ats-david...

Yes, that is correct. I am at 13. I provided the link for everyone to see. I have nothing to hide.

...who upvotes himself on every post (in addition to upvoting many comments to make it look like others agree with you)

I very rarely vote on my own comments, and usually only upvote them if I have been flagged. When I do upvote for other reasons - which is rare - I mostly upvote at 1%.

...with the @tombstone account, which is one of the Top 15 SP-holding accounts on Steemit. Haven't been too transparent about that, have you?

Yes, actually, I have. But it should be noted, I am not in a guild and I am upvoting for my own reasons. I do not profess to upvote "for the good of Steemit" or to "balance out post rewards" in order to make things more "fair."

Aside from your ongoing hypocrisy and the fact that you seem to think people working 10 hour days should do so for free, it's a worthwhile discussion.

Thank you for highlighting the very thing I talked about at the beginning of this post. If you have nothing of value to add to this discussion, I would ask that you kindly excuse yourself from it.

$0.30

liberosist (70) · 8 years ago

Yes, actually, I have. But it should be noted, I am not in a guild and I am upvoting for my own reasons. I do not profess to upvote "for the good of Steemit" or to "balance out post rewards" in order to make things more "fair."

It doesn't matter what one professes, the model is precisely the same. The only differences are that Steem Guild is a collaborative effort while your guild is an individual effort and Steem Guild has much more voting power (again, makes sense as there's far more manpower involved). Otherwise, the model seems identical. You vote on your own posts and de-facto get a vote by your trail including @tombstone.

I have absolutely no problem with that and greatly respect you for going out and convincing a whale your curation is high quality. Kudos to both you and Steem Guild!

$0.59

sigmajin (65) · 8 years ago (edited)

In many ways @liberosist is correct. It might not be precisely the same thing, but it is similar in many ways.

The key difference is that @ats-david votes for himself presumably because he believes that the content that he is posting meets some subjective critera of "good". TITS he votes for the content, not the person.

SG curators get their whale vote as a reward for work allegedly done in the service of SG. Getting whale upvotes for low quality posts (many of which are borderline plagarist or barely coherent) which, presumably, would not otherwise receive them is part of your model, and its not a part of @ats-david s. (and as i noted in the thread with smooth below, when your stated purpose is to increase the exposure of good content, but youre funding the endeavor with undeserved (based on quality of content alone) upvotes on relatively low quality posts, then it really begs the question: what are you really trying to accomplish?

Personally i think ATSD's posts are normally of a high quality, even the ones that cover topics like sports that don't interest me particularly. If ATSD got a bunch more whale followers like the vals and the michaels, and if he started posting incoherent plagiarist drivel 4 times a day and self-upvoting it as a reward for his curation efforts on other posts, Then yeah, hed be almost as bad as SG. Still no threats (that i know of) or downvoting critics (that i know of) but almost. Then again without the "for the good of steem" rhetoric that SG uses, hed probably lose most of those whale followers if he did that.

$7.53

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

It doesn't matter what one professes, the model is precisely the same.

It actually is not the same. My model is based on ROI. The goal of my trail is to maximize my SP rewards. It has nothing at all to do with better distribution of rewards. I do not seek "undervalued content" and I do not curate based on "the good of Steemit." As I have stated before, my votes are based on the following:

I vote for content that I like.
I vote for content by authors that I choose to support.
I vote for content that can maximize my curation rewards.
I vote for content that has been overlooked - if it can maximize my curation rewards.

Or any combination of those four.

I am not a guild and my votes are given almost entirely based on my self-interest. My trail is open for anyone to join or to leave. I ultimately have no control over that. I have not been delegated any specific SP for any stated purposes of "improving" Steemit or finding specific content.

I was also approached by Tombstone. He thought it would be an interesting experiment. I did not seek out any particular whales. It is entirely coincidental. I have curated almost exactly how I was curating before all of my followers joined my trail.

So, in short - I am not at all like the existing guilds. The fact that I upvote my own posts - like any other users - is to be expected. When Steem Guild upvotes each of their members' posts at a much higher voting power than the rest of their selections (which was 3-4 times as high), it's an entirely different ballgame. The Steemwhales.com image demonstrates the effects of that.

$0.00

3 votes

liberosist (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

Of course, we are getting into semantics here, but for me you are by definition a delegated curation guild. A very different type of guild, sure, but the same model applies. I'd call it an individual curation guild. You could call it whatever you want - but you have a whale and several other accounts following you trail. You get paid both by curation rewards and by author rewards from votes on this trail. You could just as well choose to not self-upvote your posts - the trail wouldn't follow. Don't do that, by the way! You should definitely get the rewards for your work. It's a free market.

I recognize your criticism of Steem Guild, but that's purely a matter of magnitude.

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

A very different type of guild, sure, but the same model applies.

I will reiterate that it is not the same model, for the reasons explained previously. The stated goals are different, the delegated power is different, the procedures and criteria are different, and the results are different.

Yes, there is a difference in magnitude, but this is practically irrelevant. The differences in the above-mentioned factors are what separates what I do and what guilds do. The fact that people receive a larger payout than my single vote is literally the only similarity between me and the existing guilds.

If Tombstone was not part of my trail, that would not change my curation habits. But I would venture to guess that if the members of Curie or Steem Guild had no whale backing, I doubt that they would be curating as they do now with the guild and its guidelines. Their voting habits would likely be different - or they simply would not exist. And this is due to the fact that the purpose of their existence is entirely different from mine and functions in an entirely different manner.

I recognize your criticism of Steem Guild, but that's purely a matter of magnitude.

It's much more than a matter of magnitude, as I explained in the post. There are many reasons for me to be against what they're doing, and some of those reasons haven't even been fully explained, due to the length of the post as it stands now.

$7.51

sigmajin (65) · 8 years ago

You could just as well choose to not self-upvote your posts - the trail wouldn't follow.

I don't think he should not self-upvote. That said, IMO it would be a really good thing if streemian had an option to exclude vote following for self upvotes.

$0.00

liberosist (70) · 8 years ago (edited)

[tree limit] It doesn't matter what your purpose or intent is, or what you call it. And it doesn't matter if you have a whale following. Steem Trail doesn't, for one.

To quote myself again -

You could call it whatever you want - but you have a whale and several other accounts following you trail. You get paid both by curation rewards and by author rewards from votes on this trail. You could just as well choose to not self-upvote your posts - the trail wouldn't follow. Don't do that, by the way! You should definitely get the rewards for your work. It's a free market.

Let's leave it at that, shall we? You can call it whatever you want, but the above facts don't change.

$0.00

7 votes

son-of-satire (69) · 8 years ago (edited)

I checked you out on steemdb after you flagged my comment with my own followers' voting power. Do not attempt to take the moral high ground here. You vote every one of your posts with 100% power of the guild, then vote other ones considerably lower.

And you flagged my comment which was between you and I alone with my own followers' voting power against their wishes.

You are not honest. Do not pretend to be because it's unbecoming.

Gaming the system is one thing. If there are vulnerabilities within the system that can be exploited, then until they are resolved this sort of thing is expected. Such is why I never mentioned this before today.

Trying to pretend you're not gaming the system whilst accusing others of doing so is much worse than the abuse itself. Be a fucking man and own up to your actions. This is embarrassing to read.

$0.00

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago (edited)

You earned that flag. I don't hand them out without careful consideration. I see that you haven't learned much since then.

If your only plan is to try to insult me, you may earn yourself another one.

If you have anything useful to add regarding my post, feel free to comment on that.

$0.00

son-of-satire (69) · 8 years ago (edited)

You earned that flag. I don't hand them out without careful consideration. I see that you haven't learned much since then.

If you're only plan is to try to insult me, you may earn yourself another one.

Your mistake, David, is believing that I am in need of whatever lesson you are trying to give me. I don't care if you flag me. 1 flag, or 1,000,000 flags. I really do not care.

You're actions are far from honourable, and I will say this regardless of your pathetic attempts to threaten me with a flag.

My goal is not to insult you, that gets us nowhere. That is merely a byproduct of me having absolutely no respect for you. I have always said what is on my mind since I was a child. I see no reason to hide my opinion, especially when that opinion pertains to someone who is hurting a community that I have grown to love.

The point of my message is to highlight the hypocrisy of this post and the dishonest nature of your words. Shame on you.

$0.00

steemship (68) · 8 years ago (edited)

It's an economy. You somehow want to make it a socialist state and dictate what others can do with their voting stakes. These people are working hard and those who have justifiably accumulated large SP stakes have chosen to 'employ' them to do the hard work of tracking 400 authors and making sure their best posts get rewarded. If you add similar value, perhaps someone will see fit to reward you. Oh, that's right, the 14th largest account on Steemit already does, plus you use your trail of trolls to vote on your posts and comments to make you seem important. Are you just upset you didn't make the Top 10?

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago (edited)

You somehow want to make it a socialist state and dictate what others can do with their voting stakes.

I would suggest that you actually read the post. Here is a direct quote:

Before I begin, I want to make this clear:

Any user can use or delegate their stake however they wish. I have never advocated forcing anyone to use their stake in any particular manner. Any arguments made are simply arguments for the purpose of discussion/debate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with talking things through and finding a general community “consensus” on a given issue.

You're continuing to look extremely foolish. I would advise trying to be more respectful and perhaps users would be more willing to have an honest discussion with you. But the choice is yours.

$0.00

steemship (68) · 8 years ago (edited)

Honest discussions? Give me a break. You've dismissed everything that is not self-serving to you and the curation rewards you earn from voting @tombstone and trails on all of your posts and many of your comments. Honest discussion would involve comments that do not get upvoted by your whale and trail. That practice is sleazier than anything about which you have complained. I challenge you to go back and look at how many discussions you have falsely steered in your direction through that dishonest obfuscation. "The community" does not include your itchy finger.

the-alien (73) · 8 years ago (edited)

@ats-david is it true? Every post? I mean look at the hypocrisy!

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

Do you have anything of value to add to this discussion?

$0.00

the-alien (73) · 8 years ago (edited)

Answer the question, don't be evasive.

True or false, you are the biggest hypocrite in here upvoting yourself with @tombstone while pointing fingers?

Didn't we had this conversation back in Curie when you realized I never took a single dime and you backed off? Or was it another one?

But is @steemship correct? Are you showing huge signs of hipocrisy? Do you or do you not upvote ALL your posts and point the finger?

Do you or do you not upvote comments (the toxic ones with dangerous accusations) with people's train without their consent to start trouble?

You know, like sociopaths do?

Do you do that? or is it false?

$0.00

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

Didn't we had this conversation back in Curie when you realized I never took a single dime and you backed off?

We have never had a discussion in Curie. And I never had a reason to "back off" because I have never attempted to "attack" anybody. I have been respectful, including in my conversations with @donkeypong, @hanshotfirst, and @ned.

Now, if you feel the need to continue trolling, I would suggest that you reconsider. You're not exactly making yourself look good here. If you would rather prefer to have an honest and respectful discussion, I would appreciate that.

steemship (68) · 8 years ago (edited)

And you voted the Wingz comment with your trail instead of this rather less flattering part of the tree. So it looks like that one has 65 votes. Steem Guild members have NEVER been that sleazy. You are the one who owes this community some transparency and accountability. Well played, David, sir.

the-alien (73) · 8 years ago (edited)

I am respectfully asking valid questions. Trolling is something else.

Trolling is when you use people's vote trains to vote on toxic comments, that is trolling ;)

I'm all for honesty. Since we are on honesty.

Do you abuse people's vote trains AGAINST their consent to vote on toxic comments?

You see that is not very honest, now is it?

Is @steemship correct with the massive hypocrisy question or is he wrong? Do you vote ALL your posts while pointing the fingers?

I rest my case.

whatsup (75) · 8 years ago

@ats-david I love that you wrote this, and it brought back many conversations we had when users, including myself were questioning steemvoter and ozcharts.. It is the same conversation. Bots voting up the same users every day, sometimes multiple times a day.

The end result is SteemIt isn't lotteryish at all. We can all guess who will trend tomorrow. The community grows weary, and we rinse and repeat. I guess it doesn't matter what "side or group" you are in. It just feels scamy.

$0.00

sigmajin (65) · 8 years ago (edited)

We have never had a discussion in Curie. And I never had a reason to "back off" because I have never attempted to "attack" anybody. I have been respectful, including in my conversations with @donkeypong, @hanshotfirst, and @ned.

lol i think hes confusing you with me. Back when curie first started up, i commented on a post that i was skeptical about the effectiveness of the model because the way it funded itself (curie posts and curie founders getting thousands in rewards for statistics and self congratulation) worked at cross-purposes to its stated intent (getting more money to those producing quality content).

The response was a slew of profanity, threats and assorted nonsense in both chat and the thread. Including threats of a blacklist (which were later deleted and revised. Apparently in whatever language they speak on the alien's home planet the word "blacklist" means "mute-button". Who knew.)

When another user (who quit soon after) saw the absurd rant in chat, he posted about it, but was pressured by curie to remove the post.

$0.00

nikflossus (66) · 8 years ago

@the-alien I would have preferred you to answer the criticisms leveled against Steem Guild rather than go straight on the offensive. Whether hypocrite or not, @ats-david has raised some issues which I'd like to see discussed. That's fair isn't it?

$0.00

4 votes

https://steemit.com/steemit/@donkeypong/steem-guild-another-important-update

the-alien (73) · 8 years ago (edited)

Sure, all the answers are here.

Now, let's go back to the subject.

Using people's voting train AGAINST their consent to start trouble on toxic comments, and voting himself all the time while pointing the finger. That's huge!

I would like to see an update or a post about why he does that.

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

They don't seem to be interested, obviously.

$0.00

sigmajin (65) · 8 years ago

Do you or do you not upvote comments (the toxic ones with dangerous accusations) with people's train without their consent to start trouble?

You know, like sociopaths do?

Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

If ATSD's followers don't like what hes upvoting, they can tell him with their feet.

$0.00

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

Indeed. He apparently does not know how Streemian trails work. Rather than find out, he chooses ad hominem arguments.

$0.00

mynameisbrian (73) · 8 years ago

Wow! What planet do you come from anyway?
@ats-david just wants to have a discussion.
Tranquilo amigo

$0.00

the-ego-is-you (59) · 8 years ago

You know, like sociopaths do?

Maybe we should leave making a diagnosis such as sociapathy to the professionals. We probably don't have the data to back up such claims and it could look a lot like flaming. Just my best advice here, not picking sides.

$0.00

sigmajin (65) · 8 years ago

Someone who wanna focus on small loose words to divert for the context...

for great justice, take off every zig?

$0.00

the-alien (73) · 8 years ago

I'm sorry that semantics overshadowed the context for you. But I agree, it's just semantics, and in case someone is a grammar Nazi, or god forbid, someone who wanna focus on small loose words to divert for the context...

You're right that is no data to back that up. Luckily, you are not pick up sides here, and we have plenty of data to focus on, data about:

Massive lies about retention and otherwise, deceit, abuse of vote trails to make certain comment trend, tremendous hypocrisy... And that's just the surface.

Thank you, and have a good weekend.

$0.00

the-ego-is-you (59) · 8 years ago

I'm sorry that semantics overshadowed the context for you.

It's not that it did for me, but it might for other readers is what I'm saying. Ok, a great weekend to you too.

$0.00

the-alien (73) · 8 years ago

Have a great weekend too!

$0.00

son-of-satire (69) · 8 years ago (edited)

You know, I would never have mentioned this had I not seen this post which is in extremely bad taste. But, this person also downvoted me with a voting trail in a personal dispute between he and I, using my own followers' voting power.

I spoke to one of the followers who's power was used to downvote me and he told me that he never gave permission for his power to be used in such a way,. especially not to down vote me who he has had many positive interactions with.

Furthermore, I then asked how he came to give his power to @atsdavid and I was told that he was approached in a steemitchat room by david himself and convinced to sign up to streemian and give his power to atsdavid.

I personally find this to be disgusting behaviour and a serious abuse of power that is gifted by those with the intent of doing good. I find this post to be ripe with hypocrisy, and it as at times like this I am somewhat ashamed of being human.

I think a better example ought to be set, and I shall be doing what I can to ensure that exactly that happens.

$0.00

https://steemit.com/steemit/@kevinwong/the-truth-about-guilds-and-individuals-illustrated

kevinwong (76) · 8 years ago (edited)

This is the problem with a one-man curation guild (with whales and other vote trains following). There are no checking mechanisms. Let me copy and paste my reply for @abit's comment below when I explained about the way Curie works (and SG too I believe):-

It's not just up to the whims of one person to vote on anything anytime. For example, I have friends who joined Steemit but I'll personally avoid suggesting / voting on any of them.

Even if I were to help out by always suggesting their stuff, another one or two person still needs to vouch for it - I can't just submit a friend's crappy posts and get them voted on that easily. It's a way to reduce chances of insider help and avoid abusing voting power given by the whales.

Imagine whale-powered / trail-powered solo curators coming up with good looking sock-puppet accounts to vote on them easily. Without other parties to vouch for such posts / accounts, such an arrangement could very well be abused.

Even without sock-puppets, there's still potential for whale-powered / trail-powered solo curators to abuse their votes in many ways. Unless people are okay with it. I'm not saying that's what @ats-david is doing. But I hope we can agree that solo curation is basically for self-interest, as expressed by OP himself.

Edited: personally I'd say that OP himself is doing good curation, but the point is that it doesn't exempt the fact that such an arrangement (being followed by whale / trail votes) for solo curators could be abused. Backers would need to be diligent and check on each and every triggered votes themselves. Under a guild like Curie (and i think SG works that way too), we make it worry-free for our backers.

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

Even without sock-puppets, there's still potential for whale-powered / trail-powered solo curators to abuse their votes in many ways. Unless people are okay with it. I'm not saying that's what @ats-david is doing.

I have never made any promises to my trail followers that I would never flag any posts or comments. Regardless, as I stated, I very rarely flag content anyway. I made an exception in his case, because as you can see, this user quickly becomes defensive, then aggressive, and begins to hurl insults. You can see his true nature below - in the comment that you actually upvoted.

I'm actually surprised to see that you endorsed that.

To talk about "honor" and the "disgusting behavior" of others while leaving commentary like that is the ultimate hypocrisy that he speaks of when attempting to condemn me (for "abuse" that isn't actually abuse). We can all see who is actually engaging in the disgusting behavior. And yes - I will flag that, trail or no trail.

$0.00

kevinwong (76) · 8 years ago (edited)

I have never made any promises to my trail followers that I would never flag any posts or comments. Regardless, as I stated, I very rarely flag content anyway. I made an exception in his case, because as you can see, this user quickly becomes defensive, then aggressive, and begins to hurl insults. You can see his true nature below - in the comment that you actually upvoted.

I'm actually surprised to see that you endorsed that.

Fair enough. Although I'm not one to throw insults etc, I'm also not one to punish anyone if I feel insulted / offended. But I'll remove my vote seeing that it seems that your disputes are running deeper than what I'm seeing on the surface.

$0.00

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

I flagged your comment after several in a row by you trying to do nothing but insult me. The flag was well-deserved and extremely rare.

Also, trail followers have their own settings. They can choose whether to follow flags or not. There is nothing "disgusting" or "abusive" about it. Please learn how the trail functions work before commenting on it, if you're not sure.

$0.00

sigmajin (65) · 8 years ago (edited)

Also, trail followers have their own settings. They can choose whether to follow flags or not.

This is a key point in this exchange. ATSD's followers elected to follow his downvotes as well as his upvotes. Presumably because they trust his judgement.

Another key point is this: there is a built in protection against ATSD abusing his DV following. If he does so, he will lose that trust (and as a result, his following). FWIW, i am seriously skeptical that most of his (or anyones) followers would consider DVing a comment where someone drops the C-bomb on him (or the N-bomb on his mom) an abuse of the DV.

if the follower really didn't know that he was following downvotes, then it seems to be a caveat emptor issue. He could have easily opted out of downvoting.

$0.00

son-of-satire (69) · 8 years ago (edited)

$0.00

Reveal Comment

kevinwong (76) · 8 years ago

I'd agree with your point about the misuse of trail downflagging for personal matters.

Steemit has so much potential, but the likes of you are tainting it and holding it back from progressing.

However, I'd disagree here. I think @ats-david has good intentions despite the dispute you guys are unfortunately having.

$0.00

son-of-satire (69) · 8 years ago

Well, I hope that I may bear witness to these good intentions in future, because that is certainly not what close observation has revealed to me thus far.

$0.00

wingz (65) · 8 years ago

Just for the record, most of that trail was me

$0.00

steemship (68) · 8 years ago (edited)

Fair enough and thanks for mentioning it. Personally, I find that to be a very sleazy practice (using dozens of votes from people who have entrusted you with their voting power) to make it look like they agree with your opinion. No one on Steem Guild has ever used the votes they represent in such a manner - not once have they upvoted one of their own comments or any Steemit-related post with other peoples' accounts. It is a flagrant misuse of peoples' voting power and it skews public opinion very inaccurately.

$0.00

wingz (65) · 8 years ago

In my case, I did not give consent or ask anyone to follow me. I just found out one day that 30+ votes followed my own. Therefore in terms of trust... I'm not really beholden to anyone.

I rarely vote on my own comments, due to respecting that forced 'responsibility' - but felt in this instance that I'd like to be heard.

Why not?

$7.51

the-alien (73) · 8 years ago

There is an enormous false premise here being spinned. That "the goals of retention are not being met."

If we have been upvoting the same authors for months, and they are still here... So how did we exactly fail to retain them?

The goals of retention in the Steem Guild are consistent, as @kevinwong mentioned below, day in, day out.

I would respectfully suggest to Mr. @ats.david to ease out on the false comments.

$0.00

whatsup (75) · 8 years ago

None of us can prove how many users left frustrated from watching the same people get rewarded day after day. One of the accounts in question was trending when they ADMITTED to just rewriting the article .. (not enough) and still kept trending the very next day!

fyi, in case you wonder what impact that has on people, it makes me feel like if I were to invest in SteemIt, my money would be redistributed to whales, sock-puppets, and friends of the whales. It makes me feel the site can't be trusted and the largest stakeholders can do what they want. If anyone speaks out or even has a question, they are threatened, teased and attacked mostly by those who are benefiting from collusive voting.

That is how SteemIt feels. There are many who want to earn posting, who can't speak out about it.

Personally, I had higher hopes for SteemIt than some rewards from a post. I can't even believe it is being justified... To upvote the curator's content at a higher level than the content you are curating? Are you really defending that? I haven't once seen you or the others say. "Maybe that wasn't a good idea.". Carry on.

$0.00

ats-david (74) · 8 years ago

Are you really defending that? I haven't once seen you or the others say. "Maybe that wasn't a good idea."

At best, I have only heard them say, "We don't really like the idea, but it's what the whales want." Frankly - I don't find that to be a very compelling argument, especially since I have personally spoken with Ned about this very subject. There seems to be a lot of attempts at justification and passing the buck, but no actual acknowledgement about how users actually perceive it and feel about it. This doesn't help the situation.

And there is almost a complete lack of any discussion about the arguments raised in this post. I'm wondering if some of them even bothered to read it.

If anyone speaks out or even has a question, they are threatened, teased and attacked mostly by those who are benefiting...

Yes - as I stated at the beginning of this post, it is the M.O. of many users to simply attack and attempt to silence, deflect, or project. You can see in this very post how some of the guild members and their supporters have decided to act. I attempted to have an open discussion about legitimate points of criticism. What have I received? Flags, personal attacks, and trolling. And a lot of it is coming from the very people who have been entrusted with the CEO's delegated power. Ned, however, seems to believe that claiming to be "hands off" (which he is certainly not, due to his involvement with the guild and its members) is the best way to handle it.

Nobody wants to assume any responsibility, let alone act civilly.

$0.00

whatsup (75) · 8 years ago

When I read the comments here, I want to put the "self-voters" on mute.
However, @ats-david, I happen to think it reads about the same as it did during the steemvoter, steemsports, ozcharts, debates. Just different people taking different sides.

I still say as long as the voting seems fixed, it makes SteemIt look scammy.

Thank you for your post and the discussion.

$7.20

kevinwong (76) · 8 years ago

Plus, retention is elusive. We can't expect people to be glued on Steemit 24/7, some will take off and do their own stuff and maybe come back later. This is the true test of a good social platform and it's hard to measure.

All in all, the point is that guilds are distributing far more votes than a few whales could possibly achieve themselves. I personally don't see what all the accusations about "centralisation" of power are about.

$0.00

sigmajin (65) · 8 years ago (edited)

without getting into a debate about the success of the retention program, I just have to point out that this is super convienient (and also super bad) "logic"

Obv, the ones that youre still voting on are still here. otherwise, you wouldn't still be voting on them. The question is how many have been lost because even scraps you throw them (while retaining the lions share of the reward pool for the under-the-table funding of various projects all run by the same group of people) aren't sufficient to keep them interested.

you can't both claim that youre retention efforts have been successful, and that measurement of such success is elusive.

$7.41

3 votes

kevinwong (76) · 8 years ago (edited)

Yup definitely not arguing about whether or not guild efforts have been successful retaining people. We can't control anyone. The point is helping whales distribute far more votes. There was a period back in middle 2016 when the zipfian distribution was heavily skewed only for the few early adopters. Now the tail is fatter.

$0.00

sigmajin (65) · 8 years ago

I don't necessarily agree that zeta is the most relevant stastic to measure rewards, but i think it would be interesting to see a real statistical analysis of late july zeta. vs zeta right now.

A more valid stastical metric for the success of reward distribution between mid july and now would be weekly lists of users, grouped according to standard deviation from the mean for rewards, and how much of the reward pool went to which standard deviations.

I suspect (though i havent yet been able to figure out how to pull out the information in an automated way) that neither metric would support your position.

$0.00

abit (70) · 8 years ago

I'd like to see that each one of the guild member leading one whale's vote, but not all of the members leading all of the whales. This will smooth out the reward distribution.

guilds are distributing far more votes than a few whales could

This is arguable. One whale can hire one curator to vote 40 times a day, 5 whales then there will be 200 times in total, it's similar to the number of votes cast by the guild everyday.

3 votes

kevinwong (76) · 8 years ago (edited)

Yup, that would work too, although it's slightly different for a guild like curie. There needs to be 2-3 vouches for a single post to get voted on (I believe this is the case for SG too).

It's not just up to the whims of one person to vote on anything anytime. For example, I have friends who joined Steemit but I'll personally avoid suggesting / voting on any of them.

Even if I were to help out by always suggesting their stuff, another one or two person still needs to vouch for it - I can't just submit a friend's crappy posts and get them voted on that easily. It's a way to reduce chances of insider help and avoid abusing voting power given by the whales.

Imagine whale-powered solo curators coming up with good looking sock-puppet accounts to vote on them easily. Without other parties to vouch for such posts / accounts, such an arrangement could very well be abused. @abit

Also to add - it's not going to be possible for one curator to cover such big grounds, especially if the # of posts are gonna be growing. It's easy to vote 40 times a day, but it certainly takes way more time to check through pretty much all posts of the day and decide where the 40 will go to. (in terms of Curie's generic curation).

Certainly arguable, but I hope you see that it's not that straight-forward.

Edited to add this part:-

I'd like to see that each one of the guild member leading one whale's vote, but not all of the members leading all of the whales. This will smooth out the reward distribution.

If you're unaware, we don't frontrun whales by voting with our personal accounts.. we'll always use a non-personal account. Our personal account votes will never trigger anything from the whales.

(added: by the way , what you've mentioned is better suited for comment curation).

$0.00

abit (70) · 8 years ago

Thanks for the reply.
IMHO that's just how capital/market works. Everyone give out their opinions, of course different people will have different opinions, at the end, the ones get positive feedback from all voters get the most rewards, the ones got less positive feedback get less rewards. If I understood correctly, your approach is more like communism, only reward the ones that you all agreed to reward, as someone pointed out, it's less likely to scale well.
By the way, when I used the word "leading", I meant that one member vote with a whale's account, but not necessarily mean front running, from an author's point of view it's no difference.

$0.00

kevinwong (76) · 8 years ago

[tree limit..] @abit

Ah yeap, leading / frontrunning (not accusing of any intent to cheat backers btw hehe - you're right there's no difference).

IMHO everything that happens is what happens in the free-market, no matter if things look like capitalism or communism or socialism. I've got nothing against solo or group curation - everything has pros and cons. That said, different parts of the free-market will quite simply, develop different structures until it dies off or evolves according to market sentiment at any moment in time.

So how Curie works at this moment is anyone will be able to suggest posts on Curiesteem.com, and there are about 6 of us on the approval side of things (looking to "decentralize" our approval powers too). So there is no account list to support. The only "list" is any account below a certain reputation (level 62 at time of writing).

There's also a curator score / approval rating system in place too to promote great curators and reducing spam / low quality submissions. In that, I believe Curie will be able to scale very well since the "workforce" is essentially the entire community itself.

It's a community project now that incentives accurate, quality submissions - https://steemit.com/curation/@curie/curie-and-community-an-open-invitation-for-all-to-be-part-of-our-curation-works-powered-by-streemian

(Many may not have read it since I guess there's some bad name for guilds in general, so just linking it here for your perusal and consideration - imo, Daily Curie list is getting much better these days)

SG on the other hand is rather different with its growing fixed set list of authors to support (basically selected authors from level 63 and above, at time of writing).

$0.00