You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Daily Discussion No. 5: Addressing the Paid Upvote Bot Controversy - Calling a Spade a Spade
The reason there is such a strong market for the voting bots in my opinion is the lack of variety in the overall distribution of Steem.
We can tinker with the math again, but every time we do the money just flows to basically the same people..
I personally have no issue with people using the voting bots. On the other hand, I feel the community should get more used to using their own flags and adjusting rewards. We were given the tools to deal with all of this, but people are still afraid to use them.
The fact is that Steemit was intended from the get go, as evidenced by the mined stakes in the wallets of the founders, to be a vehicle for profits. Unsurprising, at worst.
In the current situation, those whom you imply should be flagged are utterly invulnerable to flagging. 10000 minnow votes cannot equal one whale vote.
Any minnow that flagged a whale would be ignored, and laughed at. Should the minnow have a group that presented an actual financial impediment to profiteering, I have no doubt that minnow - and each and every one of the group - would be flagged into invisibility.
The mathematical analysis of VP on Steemit demonstrates that flagging whales isn't a viable option.
There are 38 whales on Steemit. There are probably 50k users. Those 38 whales control more SP than the rest of the platform combined, and all of them mined their stakes.
I cannot expect them to voluntarily disempower themselves, nor is there power sufficient to do so elsewhere.
The solution? Competition. Steemit might be transformed into a platform potentiating fair distribution of money, but that is perhaps the least likely proposition I can envision. Another platform, intended to do so from the outset, is likely - extremely probable - to arise, and soonish.
I believe that is the realistic future of free speech, Steemit, and cryptocurrency.
Thanks!
@valued-customer, I would certainly not expect the largest stakeholders to disempower themselves, but I might expect them to "choose wisely," where "wisely" means taking actions that support the growth of the wealth they have, rather than the decay of it through short term selfishness.
By all means, lease out your SteemPower for profit, but lease it to active manual curators who will work towards creating value for the platform... rather than to sketching paid upvote bots that largely result in an ocean of valueless content... ultimately subtracting value from the platform.
But people do tend to think short term... it seems part and parcel of being human. Personally? I'd MUCH rather than "guaranteed income for life" than "$100,000 right NOW." Most people, however, would take the $100K.
Cash is king.
Your observation that Steemit whales aren't seasoned investors is apropros here, as well.
Thanks!
Competition is always good!
I would agree that there is probably no perfect solution.
I have no issue with people purchasing upvotes for their own posts, either. But I also think it would lend a certain "truth in advertising" if we call that what it is: Self-Advertising/Promotion. Same thing happens on Facebook or twitter... if you PAID to make your post more visible, there will be a line that reads "Promoted Content."
And yes, people should get more comfortable with flags... I don't have that much SP, but I do flag stuff-- specially spammy "upvote farm" comments.