To be fair, he only self-voted 0.84% of the total rewards he assigned. That's almost negligible.
As you said we need to focus on the massive abusers for now, starting at people that self-vote more than 50% of the rewards they assign.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
yes, it's quite amazing how he does not abuse his delegated SP. An example for us all...
The situation is actually much more complicated than the current analysis gets into. Not to disrespect the current analysis, it is fine for what it is.
BUT, have you thought about and looked into voting behavior in cases where single individuals own multiple accounts and do cross upvoting.
Or what about cases where we have groups of people that have allied to upvote within their own "team", to pull the entire team up independent of the quality of any individual post.
You aren't going to be able to make "rules and laws" to handle all the special cases that people will be able to invent to try to game the system in their favor.
You will provide a valuable service just by posting data on "greediness" measurements. Leave it to the community to sort out how each individual wants to behave after that.
It is a decentralized social media platform. If you don't like decentralized and prefer someone at HQ to make the rules an enforce them secretly and top down; and always in a way that helps HQ, that is a different place.
You want to go to FB, or Reddit, or .....
Yes, i'm part of #project-smackdown and #steem-coop and there's much more to come on voting behavior.
This all sounds good but misses a crucial point: Steemit already has encoded rules that encourage certain behaviors. It is not a rule-free-zone. The algorithms that calculate rewards are a rule set. The only freedoms are those within the current rule-set.
In my opinion the current rule-set is just far too simple - just look at economic modelling to see the other extreme. Changing or adding to the rule-set is an evolution of the platform to steer it towards its original aims. Those aims were just not encoded properly. We are heading towards an extreme of the system - as systems will do - so we can either let the system drift further towards this extreme or change course.
The stats are skewed. I usually upvote myself with 99% of my votes.
More seriously this post was really interesting to me and the tone of it, at least the version I read, was presenting the stats in a pretty neutral manner.
Abusive selfish-voting and its perception are an interesting issue. We'll see out Steem evolve from here and where we take it.
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of abusive selfish voting and bigger % of self-voting isn't necessarily equal with abuse...
but maybe you do vote for others much more than yourself. I always upvote my own post, but I don't vote for my own comments (rarely). I do spend a lot of time voting for others, that is why I"m at 4%.......which I think is reasonable. I think when someone has the 99% of votes going to themselves, well then that is really problematic. It's interesting data to look at for sure.