You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What NEEDS to change NOW in order for Steemit to Survive. (Partial Payout Declined Self-Voting)
I think self-voting should stay: how do you prevent people from voting from another account or tacitly trading votes with another user or pool of users?
My solution is to go the complete opposite direction. Let people drain 100% of their voting power with a single vote. So instead of a 2% max vote you can do a 100% max vote.
What I think happens: people who just want their vests for themselves will actually try to write a good article every week rather than a bunch of spam comments and articles. A lot will think: why not try to get other peoples upvotes by writing engaging content?
Any scheme to limit voting, can ultimately be gamed, so why not make the voting as simple as possible?
I will add: the knee-jerk reaction to this is everyone will self-upvote with 100% of their SP, However:
If you are able to commit a significant amount in curation, you basically get 25% of the follow on rewards. So you can easily do better by curating good content.
Being selfish may not be the best strategy, building a social network by up-voting your peers might be far more profitable than 100% up-voting.
What will happen with a 100% vote is everyone would vote once for them selves every 6 days and the platform would be completely dead.
I disagree because curation rewards can be worth several times what a self-upvote is worth.
Why not let people who want to patronize others do that, let people who want to self-promote do that (but with a lot less spam), and let investors who do not want to participate in the social media aspect do that without suffering inflation penalties?
I detail more of my thought in this post.
https://steemit.com/steem-ideas/@donaldtrumpfan/allow-a-100-sp-vote-the-best-voting-problem-solution
Also, look at the current content. It is already 90% self-promoted trash. For the rare contribution that is worth up-voting, I would rather give much more than 2%.