Thank-you for that lovely comment, @sarahspeaks144. I'm not sure about that guide remark:
Then I read one of the guides for new users which clearly explains that the upvotes of a member with a lower reputation score have no effect whatsoever.
Although a very new user has very little vote power and because fractional values are cut off at 2 decimal places as shown on steemit.com and steemstage.com, I believe a new user still does provide something less than 1 cent (and thus shows up as zero). I find it is mostly new users that publish these guides as they themselves have just leaned something new and share what they just learned. I published a couple of my own guides at about my 2-week mark after extensive study of this platform.
My recommendation is to USE your allotted 10 votes per day (that is how much you can vote at full power and recover in 24 hours) not to earn curation rewards, but to indicate approval.
The other thing I find is that many new users flock to the few whales in the hopes of getting one of those massive up-votes from them. Think about it... if they gave the hundreds or thousands of followers each a full-power up-vote, how long do you think it would be before their vote-power would be near zero? They are just not able to support everyone at once. So, getting one of those massive up-votes is like winning a lottery; pretty slim.
Instead, I suggest finding a few people that you find interesting and form a relationship with them. Your continued interactions and mutual votes will build and build with your little groups supporting each other. This is what I am attempting to do with my weekly giveaway contests... create a single point where individuals can interact with each other. Eventually, everyone is a winner. As my own SP grows, I can award larger and larger votes. This makes the participants grow and they then provide larger votes to me which enables me to grow more and thus hand out even greater rewards. It's a slow process, but it works.
If you have any specific questions about this platform, I am happy to answer those that I know answers for. There is a lot to learn and I still have many questions of my own.
@happyme - I am blessed by everyone who has the time, generosity, wisdom and knowledge to offer help, and I will certainly come to you with my questions. Here's a good example. Not long ago, I upvoted a post and simultaneously, in the very same split second, the account value decreased by one cent. I felt like I had just spread the flu virus. Days later, I upvoted another post, and the account value increased by $2.54. I was so confused, I stopped voting that day. Essentially, my problem is incomprehension of the block chain, of algorithms, and of all things mathematical. But I suspect that may be a subconscious right brain/ left brain bias. I had never heard of Steemit until a YouTube channel creator directed his subscribers to open accounts. Obediently, we all flocked over and opened accounts. (Well, I suppose some of us did.) But I didn't even use the platform or read the instructions until last week or the week before. My reason for being here is social activism and Christian evangelism. So for me the algorithm quietly hums in the background. Occasionally, I glance at my wallet with delight and surprise to find that it contains anything at all. That's why your post about Dan Larimer and your link to his story so strongly encouraged me. I simply feel that I'm in the right place, even without fully understanding how I got here. Does that make any sense? The next time I can't figure out what it's all about, I know that I can message you and I do appreciate that.
(BTW, I have just used a chat room, steemit.chat, for the first time ever in my rather absurd life because Luddites tend to avoid all social media. The fact that I'm here at all is nothing short of miraculous.)
Well @sarahspeaks144, I am glad you are here and appreciate having made your acquaintance. I too found this site quite by accident and am now hooked. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.
I had to laugh when you explained your shock at giving a negative vote because I had the EXACT same reaction (minus the not voting any more part). It is actually quite easy to explain.
The content you see when looking at the screen is held in your computer memory after it is downloaded from wherever it comes from. So when your browser downloaded the page, the value you saw was what the author would have likely earned (what shows is an ESTIMATED VALUE) at the current value of Steem. While you were reading the page and eventually decide to give an up-vote, the price of Steem went down or more funds were drained from the reward pool (or both) and the blockchain did its calculations and decided that the original estimate was no longer valid and revised its estimate. When you clicked that button it sends a signal that changes what the page should display (the up-vote button turns blue). At that time, the browser must fetch the revised information from its source, and guess what? There is a new estimated account value along with the blue button colour! It is quite usual to see a reduction in actual pay-out just before the pay-out comes due because others are draining the reward pool and the total amount to be divided up is less than when the original estimate was made.
As for the big jump in value: If you look at the number of votes cast, you will see that you were NOT the only one to have voted in the time between when the browser downloaded the information and the time you clicked. That voter number will also have jumped up.
I wouldn't consider myself a technology Luddite, but I had a bit of trouble figuring out what to do on steemitchat, so bravo to you for managing it!
@happyme , your explanation of the fluctuating value of a post at the time of voting was so clear that even I understood it. Amazing! Just now I happened to wander across this YouTube interview with Dan and Ned which you may have watched already. If not, I found it helpful in understanding the meaning of this Facebook-meets-Reddit economic platform. Steemit was only six months old when the host, @dollarvigilante, interviewed Dan and Ned. I cannot grasp how @dollarvigilante earned $12,000 within 12 hours on his first post, but the video is interesting. There is a lingering skepticism at the back of my mind that wage-slaves in the fiat currency paradigm simply become the new wage slaves (called minnows) here. And that is necessarily true because anyone who transfers wealth out of fiat world into Steem "influence" assumes the same relative social position in a different kind of economy. If George Soros purchases $100,000 in Steem "influence" which simultaneously purchases a reputation score of 100, then George Soros enjoys the same degree of power on the blockchain that he exercised in the "global village." ( As the minnows slave away for their morsels, dollars and cents. ) I continue to believe that the primary motive for participating here must be non-monetary. If there is any other motive, that motive will succumb to circumvention, bot influence, and get-rich-quick corruption, just as IRL.
Here's another example: When the sudden influx of new accounts slowed and crashed the system, many applicants waited long periods for account approval. To address this issue, one of the whales who is an attorney IRL offered to "help" new users set up their accounts for a fee of $50. The whale had no unique knowledge about account setup and administration nor did the whale do anything for the $50 fee that any new user could not do independently. Nevertheless, "it happens." And that faux service can be added to the infinite number of profit motive schemes and scams that compromise the concept of anarcho-capitalism and the purity of the principle. But what do I know?
Here's the link:
Oh you are quick!!!! How long have you been on here? Ummmm what was that about Luddite?
I have not seen this video, but it was in fact Mr. Burwick that mentioned Steemit in one of his other videos that a friend of mine gave me a link to that got me curious enough to look into Steem.
1.) You need to consider who were the first ones to find and adopt steem. These were the anarchistic cryptocurrency geeks. So, when he posted his stuff on there, everyone likely resteemed his post and everyone voted on it.
2.) With just a (relatively) few people sharing the reward pool, it was much easier to get high rewards back then.
This is the aspect that some of us are attempting to do something about. There are people who realize this as part of the current system and are actively attempting to curb or in some small way mitigate. Of course there will always be others who use the guise of "helping" minnows to fatten their own wallets, but that is just a fact of life. It is up to each individual to make their own analysis of each situation and decide how they will react to it. Some really don't care about the ethics of what they participate in and care only if they can derive some benefit for themselves, even if the greater benefit is for the person providing the service.
Absolutely! And because of instant power, he could influence witness votes and thus the platform itself. The system is far from perfect.
Seems you know an awful lot for a newbie! Care to assist with the gradual mind-shift that needs to happen for this platform to follow the purity of its principals? You might have some great ideas.
@happyme - Yes, I'm always happy to help. "Gradual mind shift" is just my thing. But I'll have to pace myself and take it slowly for two reasons: 1) I am fighting a war on two fronts in my non-Steemit life and only God's grace has kept me thus far; and 2) I don't yet fully grasp this platform. My brain works by degrees. I did not understand every word that Dan and Ned said in the interview, but I understood a general concept. And I could also see the pitfalls I mentioned in our conversation, pitfalls that Dan and Ned either could not see or would not acknowledge. Now here is another linked interview by the same whale, @dollarvigilante , in which he himself admits that the $12,000 post was simply a paragraph in "Introduce Yourself." He stated his user name and current media platforms, and invited followers. Both he and his guest admit that his "value" to the platform induced the founders and original investors to reward him heavily because a few thousand dollars out of earnings and profits in the millions would not be missed. After the whales were rewarded, that door closed, share price dropped by 75% , and the floodgates opened to admit the minnow pond. The guest also explains that when only a small percentage of Steem is traded, its value is artificially inflated to enrich the coffers of early purchasers. If those buyers sell at the inflated price, they earn huge sums, but Steem value is reduced by the sale. So, according to the critic, the founders created a trading currency out of thin air, then persuaded others to purchase the invented currency with fiat currency or Bitcoin. The actual value of Steem does not exist until it is purchased with an existing currency that gives it value. When you watch the video, you'll be able to tell me if I understood that correctly. So here it is:
I believe you understood the video debate perfectly. Thanks for finding and sharing that video. Obviously you are a careful person and are doing your homework. I have exactly the same concerns. The early adopters will come out way ahead no matter what happens as long as they power down a small portion early. They take out real value and speculate with the remainder, but always stay way ahead of the minions because of the way the system is set up. The longer the platform 'works' the more they stand to gain, so it is still in their best interest to keep it going. However, at some point they may get bored and have so much that it really makes no difference to them any more since that early money has already been invested into other businesses. As the argument went... nobody knows how it will go. It is a social experiment and can go either way.
Many people take the view of Jeff who are in it for the excitement and for fun. If it succeeds, great. If it doesn't, there was no real loss. They don't care what anyone else makes.
Others are active traders who trade constantly and have invested their own funds, but because of the volatility of cryptocurrencies in general, they can buy and sell even several times per day and earn a bit on each trade. Once they break even, they can take a loss without actually losing anything of their own. From that point on, anything they gain is pure profit.
Then there are the unqualified investors who are caught up by the hype and the frustration of low earnings so they buy in to increase their VP and hope to earn ever greater rewards. These are the REAL backbone of the platform and the buyers of what the early adopters are selling. These are the people who literally buy the risk that was mentioned in the video. THEY are the ones who the average user SHOULD be supporting and idolizing.
Come join my contests and games and support the new witness that is supporting me. You will earn a few pennies while having fun and at the same time be part of a movement to slowly transform the direction of the platform. There is power in numbers! We need to build those numbers.
@happyme - (Trying this again, first reply disappeared somewhere in the ecosystem.) Here's what I love about you. You always "get it," you understand the issues, and you don't miss a trick. I've just recommended you in a two-month-old conversation between @valued-customer and @igster,
"RE: STEEM is starting to seem about as scalable as the Earth. (not good)." When you have time, read their comments and replies. Excellent discussion.
I almost entered your pick-a-number contest (111-666), but as a Biblical Christian activist, those numbers sent a shiver very similar to the discovery that one of my followers is "Beelzebub" (which "caused a disruption in my serotonin reuptake inhibitors"). Then I discovered that "Beelzebub" is the alter-avatar of my adopted mentor, @carlgnash , who is one of the most generous and helpful Steemians in the community. Just goes to show ya!