We recently ran some statistics and found that @ozchartart was the number one blogger by author rewards in the past month. Every single day he posts 3 or 4 times and every single time he posted he would get $70 to $120 per post totaling over $300 per day. This is far more than any other blogger.
What is more, I have reason to believe that @ozchartart is a friend of some of the major whales who up vote his posts. What is telling is that it isn't @ozchartart who is acting out by flagging every single one of my comments into oblivion, it is the whale(s) that vote for him.
Content Quality and Value
This is a very subjective issue when voting on an individual post. When in doubt I tend to let things slide because I recognize that other people may value things differently than me. Every unique post deserves some time in the sun.
The problem I have with @ozchartart is that he has been producing the same content for almost 6 months and prior to my flagging attempts was pulling in more money each month than anyone else. I ignored his posts because they had the "appearance of substance" due to length, images, etc. I also figured there was some good trading discussion stimulated by it.
A closer look at Content
After a while I grew tired of scrolling past his posts multiple times per day every day. He was dominating the trending page. So I decided to dig deeper. What I discovered is that 95% of every post could be completely automated. The 5% that couldn't be automated involved one paragraph describing a chart and drawing a few unlabeled lines. As a programmer I also know that much the remaining 5% were text descriptions were formulaic, meaning that a computer could generate the text and simply substitute in different numbers on different days. Even the charts could be automatically annotated by software simply by looking at the data. All told, it would be a trivial computer science project to replace 99% of the content.
Relative Value to Other Content
In my humble opinion, almost every single post and comment on the site represented more real value than @ozchartart was providing. A down vote on this content is just a shortcut for up voting everything else. In terms of time, energy, and proof-of-engagement every comment longer than a few sentences is of higher value.
Double Standards
Some whales have frequently flagged high profile bloggers such as myself, @dollarvigilante and even @krnel. The justification for their flags were that "they posted too much and got too many votes". It is clear that they feel justified in periodically voting against these legitimate posts containing much more involved content.
My response to such criticism was to decline payout on the majority of my posts. I respectfully request that @ozchartart do the same.
Coordinated Campaign of Sock Puppets
Many people may not realize it, but one of the whales supporting @ozchartart, is and has been troll from the very beginning. He is prone to outbursts and rage flagging legitimate content. Many have witnessed his childish antics in slack and other places.
I have been tolerating his behavior because he is a whale. In my opinion he has proven himself to be a bad whale. A whale who profiting by promoting @ozchartart and who is selling out.
Propose a Truce
I will no longer flag @ozchartart if other whales stop up voting for him. I think we are civilized enough to agree to disagree on this particular issue.
Censorship!!
The trolls and spammers are always the first to cry censorship. They will say outrageous things in order to defend their gravy train. I have no problem with his "content" and would never dream of flagging it if it declined rewards. What we have here is a legitimate difference of opinion between two whales.
When we both express our contrary opinions on a particular piece of content things are fair. What is not acceptable is to take this disagreement outside the voting booth and start throwing a tantrum by flagging my comments that weren't even getting any meaningful payout. Whether you believe @ozchartart adds or removes value, it is clear that burying my actual comments is abusive and taking value away from the platform.
Conclusion
Steem is a platform where everyone gets to vote their stake. We know that there are people who will attempt to gain every advantage if it profits them, even at the expense of the whole. They will claim that I am the one attempting to game the rules to secure an even larger stake for me and my friends, but this is mere projection. I created Steem to give it away. I designed a system to intentionally include as many people as possible. I have no need for more stake and am actively giving away much of the STEEM I do have to fund development and free account signups.
Lets not make this about any individual post. Lets look at the past 6 months of unchallenged milking of the platform. Leaving these actions unchallenged will only make the abusers stronger.
Hopefully we can move on to more productive activity.
Your entire attitude including your unproven and unprovable accusations of "collusive" whales and abusive behavior is dysfunctional and harmful.
You would be more honest in simply stating that you do not like the content, or that you do not like anyone (other than you?) to make more than $X. By attempting to defend your actions by making accusations which you can not prove and which are certainly, at a minimum, not as true or clear as you make them out to be, you simply damage your own credibility.
I've voted for @ozchartart's posts (in part because of your flags) and I can tell you that I'm not part of any collusion. No one other than me has any influence whatsoever on my votes. Since I have done so @ozchartart has personally reached out to me to thank me which has encouraged me to continue supporting his work. (I had no contact with him prior to this.)
Why should I reject that friendly approach by @ozchartart, and instead side with a power-hungry dictator who wants to throw a legitimate contributor under the bus in order to propose a truce that is only made necessary by his personal inability to cultivate a positive working relationship with the other major stakeholders and instead prefers to assign himself as the having the authority to label good and "bad whales"?
Good then please give back the hundred thousand dollars or more worth of both liquid rewards and stake that you received in post rewards via "collusive voting" of yourself, your co-workers and employees, and others with whom you have a close relationship. Burning would be an effective approach. Please do not claim to be unaware that this was occurring since I commented on it at the time, repeatedly.
@smooth! You have brought enough trouble to this platform as it is. I am ashamed of you and I think you should be ashamed of yourself too the way you have mistreated new and investing users. How many hundred accounts have you flagged to oblivion since you mined your stake early? Shameful, @smooth - shameful!
Please be more polite, it is better to kill with kindness than use harsh language. The value of your point gets lost and you give your opponents argument greater strength even if you are right.
ok, @dantheman :)
Nice response!
Good Point & Well Said!
I fully agree!
Dan, off subject, completely, but if you aren't busy this Saturday and want to hang out a bit, you are more than welcome to stop in at the Ozark Area Steemit Meetup if you can make it to Springield, MO. Figured I'd mention it anyway. Thanks!
A devil's advocate is always a welcome balance of power, telling people to STFU always only begs the next logical question...
I think you and Dan are delusional. You believe you are great visionaries and creators. But the simple fact is your efforts failed to fix the SBD to 1 USD (even with the endless pockets of Steemit account)... and now you believe you have done it by your "system design". The truth of the matter is - SD is worth $1.00 now mostly due to @smooths single handed sacrifice to enforce the peg (and him being ready to take any losses if need be). You and everybody else should be thankful to him till the end of your life... he is saving your bad product and putting tons of money in your pockets. Why he does it, I have no clue even before this tasteless comment of yours... I know I would have left you, you bunch of clueless idiots, long time ago...long ago with a nice stash. But he stays....you should starts thanking him any second you have a chance from now till Steem is alive.
Probably none other than a maybe a few (certainly not hundreds) clear spam/scam accounts, and occasionally blatantly abusive posts or comments similar to yours. I also have flagged over-rewarded posts, including dan's, but not "to oblivion". You perhaps have me confused with someone else.
If what Dan said was true 3 to 4 posts per day receiving the highest payout, and not much new per post then why are you not flagging these "over-rewarded posts". Keep in mind I don't like the flag at all for anything other than abuse, spam, and plagiarism. So am not defending either you or Dan for your subjective stance on what is over rewarded. I am simply pointing out your hypocrisy with this particular response. I was following Ozchart and I up voted his material from time to time (not always) and I only partially benefitted from it as I'm not really a trader. Yet I can see that the analysis Dan gave was likely pretty accurate as he is not the only person to say it before now. I know there is a paragraph and usually a video linked (Lot's of Ozzy/Sabbath) yet based upon your statement that certainly does not warrant being the highest rewarded poster on the site.
Your response seems more a personal thing than actually being logically based around your claims. If you were accurately following the "flagged over-rewarded" posts then why were you not working with Dan?
EDIT: And I did not agree with you being told STFU. From my experience such things never convince anyone of the intended goal.
It is possible in time I may have, as I have downvoted other sorts of posts I've seen as overrewarded and not bringing sufficient value. I only started voting for them because I do not support Dan's approach at all.
But after having done so and being personally approached by @ozchartart to express his appreciation I do not regret it. It also suggests to me another theory on this matter, which is simply that @ozchartart is getting the votes because he is good at networking and building positive relationships, which is very much part of what makes social networks function. Dan should try it instead of going off and alienating nearly all of the largest stakeholders and labeling them as "bad whales"
You cannot say that it is acceptable for you to downvote @krnel's post because you feel it was overvalued, but it's not okay for @dan to downvote @ozchartart's post for the same reason.
If you think that @dan is setting a bad example then you should set a better one.
I am hearing that @ozchartart has flagged and gone after other people trying to make their own charts. At the moment this is hearsay, and may not be accurate. It is something to keep an eye out for.
As to Dan's approach. I don't really see it as any different than the approach other whales have been using on smaller guys. They are big enough to squash the things they subjectively think are over valued, or of no value, or don't like.
They are too powerful for anyone to really just shrug it off.
So as far as Dan's actions... it looks to me like the same thing, he just is currently more powerful than the people that have been saying it is OKAY to do this when they do it.
Also. You really need to consider how you are harping on how much steem power Dan has. He and Ned created the platform. If anyone logically should be an early Whale they definitely should be.
Right now unless Bernie changes his approach I am glad someone like Dan has power. I'd rather not see posts down voted for the reasons this one was, and the reason any one else does for an overvalued post. Yet it is easy to game the system.
And Bernie voting up his own comments to $8+ using two whale accounts kind of defeats the purpose of returning value to the pool.
You did not do such a thing that I am aware of. I'd actually be pretty surprised at such an action from you.
I can't reply to your comment below and it is tedious to keep scrolling back and forth to read what your wrote (a good number of apparently separate points) and reply to it so I will agree to disagree on many points. Certainly not everything everyone does on this platform is something that others support, and that applies equally to Dan or to me. My view is that the founders have a special and unique role due to their visibility, implied authority, and other factors. Again you may disagree, and in the end it is only my opinion, nothing more.
EDIT 2: @whatsup I can't reply because of depth (can't wait until that is fixed!). There is a huge difference between a duplicate link post for the same link, and just generally competing on posting charts, as is vaguely alleged. But I don't know what actually did or did not happen there.
EDIT: I certainly don't like the idea of someone flagging other legitimate posts that compete with them and it isn't something I would support. You should not interpret any favorable comments I've made about @ozchartart based on a single conversation with him as endorsement of everything he does or has done (assuming this is actually true).
Yeah. You and I agree/disagree from time to time, but as you've told me you prefer people being honest with you. This is why I still respect you and take the time to have dialog with you.
One thing you had me thinking of. You said you up voted it and @ozchartart reached out to you and seemed sincere in his thanks so it made you feel better about your decision.
I can relate to that on an emotional level. I get it. It feels good to be appreciated and I have no doubt he did/does appreciate your action.
Yet, that does not mean what he is doing deserves these rewards. Con Men and Women can be really nice too. That's an important trait.
I am not saying @ozchartart is such a person. They built the posts, so I do not think that is the case at all. I will say if that is where the highest amount of rewards have been going to then looking at the posts if I were the type to down vote things I believe are over valued I'd be flagging these posts now. That is not me though as you know, so I will not.
LOL - it wouldn't matter anyway. If I did it he might lose $0.01 payout if I was lucky. ;)
You flagged @timbo 's post for competing with Joseph's post LAST week.
Why are you using Dan Larimers name? Are you planning to SCAM people with Private Messages in the future from fake @Danlarimer to noobs?
I RED FLAG YOUR ACCOUNT! @danlarimer - Accounts like yours are evil.
I must say... a fake account comes out like that in regards to a post exposing possible fraudulent behavior within a certain "circle of whales" is something I find very interesting.
word of advice... nows not a good time to let that rogue AKA @Danlarimer account run it's mouth the way it just did.. IF that rogue account is affiliated with this "suspicious" network... IJS
Not dan's account.
!cheetah ban
Okay, I have banned @danlarimer.
Lol. Is that how bots work then? I always wondered..
If you are @anyx. @Cheetah is his creation. :)
EDIT: And believe me the site is a better place thanks to Cheetah.
Every bot works according to its own programming.
Been meaning to ask, can you have Cheetah make a post again about the positive things cheetah is doing? I noticed because cheetah voted on my post, and commented. I think people only see the bad side of cheetah, it might help to explain the positives again if possible. I do like what cheetah is doing now that I see the positive sides as well.
Thanks just something to consider!
Yeah, despite what some people think, I am still watching cheetah closely and continuing development of her. Almost daily.
She has evolved a lot, so I probably should do another post to explain her.
On my to-do list now :)
I'm confused by the above account, @dantheman is this one of yours? I've never seen it before.
That account is not mine, it is someone attempting to impersonate me.
Added the fake account to cheetah, good call @williambanks.
It's confusing, seriously @dantheman unless this dude has Dan Larimer on his drivers license, he should be modded into oblivion because that's just not cool at all. Wish @anyx could set @cheetah to hunt and follow accounts like that, it's dangerous to the community as a whole.
I don't believe it is. The account was used once before in a context where it was more clear that it was being in from a perspective of criticism and not impersonation, and in that case it didn't bother me. In context here, it is inappropriate and misleading.
If you look at the account's comments, I highly doubt it.
It would be bad news if the account had millions of SP. Luckily it only has about 9 SP. Likely not a threat.
Really smooth? You downvote to oblivion tdv and hide his posts and then you are coming here to tell us that you are against downvoting ozchartat? Shame on you and only shame smooth, If this is not HYPOCRISY i don't know what it is! , I have nothing else to say!
That is not what I wrote and in another comment I acknowledged that I might very well have downvoted him at some point. When you are actually reading what I wrote and responding to it rather than distorting it, I'd be happy to discuss it with you further.
Note that I decline payouts these days.
Yes, you started doing that after the rewards had already dropped by 90%+.
It isn't too late to burn the rewards you received from 'collusive whale voting'
Does it matter if the rewards have dropped? Surely it is the same amount of vests one receives from an upvote, regardless of the current price of steem? So if @dantheman had been accepting payouts, their lower value now would represent a much larger value in future once the price of STEEM rises.
I'm no expert, but that makes sense to me. If I'm wrong, please clarify how it works.
[nested reply]
I don't think it makes sense to back and forth on whether the price of steem might rise. We probably agree on that.
Nevertheless it doesn't change the fact that Dan was perfectly comfortable receiving, and not declining, rewards from just the same form of affinity voting that he labels here as collusive bad whales (and which was pointed out repeatedly as such by myself and others), and that he did so at a time when the financial benefit to him was a lot larger than the financial sacrifice he makes now by declining.
His approach of taking advantage of the system rules when it greatly benefited him but then attacking and vilifying others based on suspicions of doing the same thing, and adding labeling and name calling on top of that is incredibly harmful.
What I'm saying is that taking a share of the reward pool when the price of STEEM is very high and everyone is getting something is expected. Declining it when the reward pool is low is in my opinion admirable.
It is 5.32am where I am and I'm getting very tired, so I'm going to go to sleep. I'm happy to discuss this in greater detail when my brain is working at full capacity. Good night.
Perhaps there is a notable difference between the "environment" which Dan was allegedly "gaming" the system and today's environment?
Now that steemit has gained some footing, in terms of user adoption and blockchain/ platform growth, perhaps it behooves the whales to stop with their abusing of the system and/or hypocritical ways. In other words, equal actions between past and present may still equate to far more amplified consequences in the present condition(s) of Steem/ Steemit.
I think it's time to forgive and forget past actions and focus on the present. Good things can happen from here, if we approach the current circumstances with a clear mind. The majority of our collective focus should be aimed at how to grow our collective network that is Steemit/ Busy/ etc.
Fruitless arguments are a waste of intelligence and, with that, potential, IMO.
Mostly you are wrong because there is no guarantee that STEEM will rise. It could rise, it could fall, or it could stay the same. The most sensible unbiased analysis uses the current price at the time of the action being taken.
There are other factors that are related to that or not to varying degrees such as the rewards having been cashed out at higher prices (and could, theoretically be used to buy much more stake now), the rewards in STEEM/VESTS being cut by about 40% in HF16. The stake share of rewards declining over time due to hyperinflation and the VESTS exchange rate, there being much more competition from high quality/earning posters now, and probably others.
Nevertheless, even if I were to accept what you say, how does declining reward now turn back the clock on six months of not declining them while receiving votes from 'collusive whales' of the population I described? I don't believe it does. Only returning those rewards would.
I had thought you seemed very intelligent based on my previous reads of your comments, but this comment seems to suggest otherwise. Whether the price of STEEM does rise or not is irrelevant.
The fact is, it might.
That is enough of a reason for someone to choose to receive payout, on the off chance that the vests they receive today might one day be worth 1000X more in future.
There is no potential risk of loss, so there is no need for a sensible unbiased analysis. We are not trading cryptocurrency here.
I feel that @dan's choice to decline payout seems to be a genuine attempt not to subtract money from a reward pool that is already very low. But, if you can tell me another reason why he would do such a thing, I am all ears.
So you believe that ozchartart's posts are quality and not botty/spammy/fakish? I have had ozchartart's posts in my list of auto upvotes on my steemvoter account for a while and now I am wondering whether or not I should remove him...
edit: Or are you making the point that even if it is fairly automated botty posts he should still have the right to post them and is deserving of payouts?
No, I really have no opinion on it because I'm not a chartist. I however, don't think that accusations of abuse should be made just because someone doesn't like his work or his type of work.
I can tell you that in my personal conversation with him @ozchartart seemed like a sincere contributor who values his work and who truly believes that people who follow his work also value it. IMO, one of the founders of the platform attacking him from a position of explicit and implicit authority is not the right approach, regardless of whether we think his chart analysis is accurate or not. It will likely, as similar actions have in the past, drive away yet another (at least up until now) sincere and devoted contributor and supporter of Steem. Not the way to build a community.
I could not agree more with this sentiment.
I followed it for a week before the first time I flagged it, a couple of weeks ago. It rarely had 4 or 5 views before making over $50 from automatic voters.
@whatup I support however you want to vote on it. My posts get quite a bit of instant voting from automatic voters as do dan's and many others. In fact for a while even my comments were getting a whole bunch of automatic votes, though whatever bot(s) were doing that seem to have stopped. It's hardly unique to @ozchartart; and is simply the nature of the platform. (Lot of automatic bot votes happen on reddit too btw.)
I have never considered investing in Reddit.
I think I agree because even if his posts are mostly cut and past/automated I enjoy looking at the charts he posts because I don't have to go and look them up myself. The content may not be very in depth but it has been useful for me.
Right. It's like a financial news letter/ radio-/tv- station. While most of us may not enjoy it, there still might be some value in it.
While that may be true, is that slight convenience worth $300.00 in Steem earnings from the daily reward pool?
Now, consider that people, like myself (whom also happens to be a chartist), will put in just as much time/ effort, perhaps even much more (if his posts are mostly automated), and get something like a 10 ~ 20 cent payout. I'm not going to take the stance that it's unfair, whatever that word means, but I do think that this can lead to some user retention issues, now and in the future.
I think it behooves the whales/ guilds to "spread around the love" a bit within the various tags and sub-tags, if only to show a little appreciation of hard work. People like to feel loved/ appreciated. One upvote can go a long ways. Similarly too many upvotes towards a single user can send a bad message to the overlooked/ underappreciated.
To stick to this @ozchartart example, I've already seen many better chartists (IMO, of course) stop posting their works here on steemit, presumably because they get very little rewards (cents) for high-dollar efforts. Then I look at @ozchartart's works, with its very basic technical-analysis profile (not that there's anything wrong with keeping to the basics, but obviously not a lot of time is put into it), and it consistently earns $80+.
So, we have high dollar efforts receiving cents, and cents efforts receiving high dollars. Is that good for the platform?
...be honest with yourself now.
Do we really want only one chartist to dominate earnings day over day, week over week, month over month, therefore losing a lot of real talent in that area from Steemit, likely for good?
It should be fairly obvious that Steemit's best chance for success is to spread rewards between the upper talents of their respective "fields" not to pick one cash cow out of each of them at the exclusion of all the rest.
may I ask how the repetitive chart posting is more interesting and "steemit material" then krnels post from a few days ago?
I don't post either but I think there's a deeper element to consider in krnels post vs nerd stats and data
if it's auto upvote related then I retract my question
I actually addressed that in response to a comment on one of @krnel's posts. It addresses a larger, broader, and proven market. People like to trade and that includes paying attention to market reports and chart analysis. Not everyone likes that but it is far, far larger draw than long-form philosophy. Nor did I repeatedly and relentlessly downvote every single @krnel post and do so with multiple accounts..
Now I'm not here to shill for @ozchartart. Frankly his content isn't my thing and that's not why I am against what Dan has been doing and the way Dan justifies his actions.
I haven't started posting yet, but I think when I post some long form philosophy I'll promise a chart at the end, and of course a photo of a kitten.
Edit; Not to get a lot of votes, but to prevent down votes or flags.
2nd edit; (because of 6 post down)
As reply to @mrwang
Well it's a little joke but.... to be fair.
I could just as well turn the sentence around. Like this.
I haven't started posting yet, but I think when I post some charts I'll promise some long form philosophy at the end, and of course a photo of a kitten.
But I guess that what started as a joke ends up being booooooooooring philosophy ;)
aww, lmao... @wordsword that's hilarious.
@smooth gotcha
Did you have a similar personal conversation with @krnel? (and the 200+ readers of his content?)
I don't see why you think Dan should take responsibility for user retention and you shouldn't. He may be a bigger fish than you and he may be a co founder, but that's irrelevant to the fact that your interests should be aligned since you are both heavily invested.
No, but he is welcome to reach out to me as @ozchartart did (as is anyone)
Dan can do what he wants. I'm expressing my opinion on it.
I'm not employed by Steem/Steemit in any manner, with the possible exception of running a witness node (arguably whether that constitutes being 'employed'). This is not my job and i'm not "responsible" for anything about it. I'm a stakeholder, investor, and a user. Trying to equate my role with that of a founder and lead developer is nonsensical. Yes we are both large-ish stakeholders but the similarity begins and ends there.
For the responsibility you refuse to take I would argue that nobody should be voting for you as witness.
I wouldn't suggest noone should vote for you as of yet, and I still do even though I made the decission a long time ago and have little influence.
But I would agree that with being a witness comes, and should in my opinion come an even greater, social responsibility.
I personally always suggest noone should vote for anyone who'm they disagree with on what they themselves consider important issues, no matter if they are directly related to technicalities such as running a node or not.
Quality is subjective. They are easy to digest and I use them to show new investors when they have questions about how to price steem.
@ozchartart's posts help me sell steem and steemit to people who otherwise would not be interested. It's your decision on whether or not that report, automated or not is worth your upvote. It is mine on days I'm looking at it. Then again I don't have anyone on autovote either.
Some whales have this on autovote and vote for multiple charts every single day. There is no way a serious trader needs those 3 or 4 posts, each day.
Agreed, but it's the way our system works. Trending authors trend, because curation rewards exist. If you know that whales are going to vote something you'd have to be acting in an irrational manner not to vote with the whales and to do so before the whales.
Whales for the most part don't have a lot of time to curate by hand so some accounts are on auto upvote.
There is no problem with this because it's by design.
However if there were no curation rewards, then this would not be as much of a problem.
It is exactly the reason, I would not invest nor bring anyone I know here.
@williambanks I'm sorry, but they've been being flagged for months and you only noticed yesterday... Very few people even noticed even when they remained on the trending page AFTER flagging. Barely anybody showed interest because nobody noticed because practically nobody retains value from those 4 time daily posts.
[the other reply to a different comment I guess before an edit]
Why? I have not autoupvoted ozchartart, nor anyone else for quite some time.
If you like his posts, fine, if you don't like his posts that's fine too. No one is forcing you to support them with autovotes. Your call.
Up to the voters (including you).
"Why? I have not autoupvoted ozchartart, nor anyone else for quite some time."
Just for the sake of supporting him and my own curation rewards.
"If you like his posts, fine, if you don't like his posts that's fine too. No one is forcing you to support the."
I mean I'm wondering if the posts are willfully misleading people or something. For example tricking people into pumping or dumping coins at a loss.
I don't think anyone has even alleged that.
As a professional trader I agree with your interpretation. It's easy to get fooled into thinking people that talk about technical analysis in the markets have some kind of 'magic pill' or 'secret sauce'. Then assigning responsibility and authority to them.
As you stated, much of it can be automated and what is not automated in the case of ozchart is merely a recollection of price movements and unexplained lines without context. It's not analysis.
This is the exact same reason why I keep my own technical analysis to myself. It's no magic pill, it's my own opinion, and it makes no sense trying to explain what I see when I look at a chart, a chart that has zero predictability. If I were to express any analysis, it would be fundamental analysis (news, events, developments, etc), because you're stating the facts rather than speculation.
It is just a plain ole' chart that anyone who is trading should know how to create. Can you picture a trader waiting around for this chart to come out so he can trade. SMH. Either people haven't traded or.... I don't even know what else to say, this is so silly.
Let's not overstate it, now. If you know that it has zero predictability, wouldn't it make you a fool to use it?
Technical analysis is statistical analysis of price patterns. We will find with enough research that certain price set-ups and/or patterns provide specific odds of "success", whatever parameter we assign to that word.
The problem is that a lot of people want the "holy grail signal" that has a 100% success rate, while the best signals are more in the 55 ~ 60% range. Thus, reward/ risk profile is mostly what determines trading success.
Thanks. Your display of strong leadership has made me bullish on the platform again. A bit late, but I am getting some more STEEM now.
Thank you for speaking up against the whale collusion that many of us have recognized, and not only on this one account. And when the bad behavior of whales gets exposed, some people can't handle the negative and conflict and try to make people who speak up look like the bad guys for pointing out issues. If people want "community" and "unity", issues need to be made more public so that things get resolved. Trying to spin things around as if the people who bring up issues are the problem is indeed projection.
But, of course, it isn't "whale collusion" when the same whales repeatedly vote for your posts, right?
Or are you going to suggest that you got that 74 rep from minnow votes?
I work to put out content that people HONESTLY evaluate. Not constantly upvoted for my content regardless of what is there (some people do, and that's a max payout of $5-6 on autovoters alone). You know you're lying when you said what you just said. You're just trying to spread lies and see how many fools buy into it.
You're such a deceiver. Get a clue, but you can't it seems. You willfully refuse to look at things honestly and see the difference. It's just idiocy of thinking someone get's voted on, not for quality content that is evaluated, no, just assume it has nothing to do with content that people actually value since it is HQ content... no, keep denying reality, be a fool, and say that someone only gets upvoted because whales are colluded to upvote their HQ or interesting material that isn't repetitive crap charts.
But you go ahead and vote on the same shit charts each day, with all your buddies to pump crap to the top, with higher rewards than most people, but hey don't flag that crap because you're making curation rewards from it, flag the guy who puts out HQ work that can change the world, and for the first time gets his HQ work on the top 7 trending and a payout over 100$ for the HQ work. Yeah, that's worthless junk, better flag that. You're a hypocrite, a liar, a deceiver, and it's a joke that people don't see through your bs.
It's wrong we see only black and white.... It is wrong to put labels on people like bad and good.... We have all or good and bad moments... I like to see the glass half full... I like to focus on the good things both have brought to the community.... Are you aware for example that one of hundreds of @smooth contributions is about $17K for busy project(I will not mention other initiatives since it is easy for an above average IQ person to make a basic investigation and find out)
PS note that I am too in general against "flagging"
If you are going to make false accusations and talk about "spreading lies" while doing exactly that, and generally respond disrespectfully to contrary opinions, that only gives me another reason to conclude that your content (along with your behavior), is not a valuable contribution, but I already largely believe that so it isn't a large leap.
Part of health is healthy white blood cells! Hopefully I don't have to explain the analogy, in this context.
Thank you for posting @dantheman.
Your objective and reasoned approach will hopefully bring in many readers. Your explanation is appreciated...though one is not required....which makes it all the more welcome.
If one may add to the dialogue...it did seem that @ozchartart was bringing to the platform content not found elsewhere....however just as @steemsports ran too many posts so it seems that @ozchartart was doing it as well in a different way with repetitive content.
Your post has been given a hearing and the information assessed.
The trouble for members of Steemit who make little to nothing from their posts....is that the idea of using ones vote to upvote the higher reward posts in order to increase their own reward is a way of making ones time on Steemit worthwhile until ones own posts gain a viewership. However looking under the hood is never pretty and for this bleujay thanks you. Truth is harsh....it takes a leader with moral courage to put it out there and let the people decide.
Your post the other day Blogging for Money...is the view taken by bleujay in that this is a long term endeavor which requires the 3D's of success..Desire...Dedication...and Determination.
Wishing you all the best.
By no means does ozchart deserve the amounts he's currently getting. These posts take under 10 mins to make at maximun and require a little thought, close to none really. Other traders would agree, I'm quite sure. I've considered flagging themselves weeks before but I was afraid to receive flagging in revenge as Dan is now and let's be real my vote has 0 effect. People can still find the charts.
... That is another problem with the current system
I find it extremely hard to believe you hadn't thought about this kinda thing when Steemit was being developed.
A quick look shows everyone it's all about selling steem. You want to avoid being flagged, buy more steem. You get attacked, buy more steem and flag back.
Perhaps you shouldn't have sold so much steem yourself. I hear there is still some for sale though.
Seriously, do away with the damn flag system and put fourth a group of admins, paid admins; to deal with the garbage...
I did see this problem coming and when I suggested a proposed solution (vote negation) it was rejected by the very whale(s) who are acting out today. With vote negation it is possible to let the two disagreeing parties "stand down" and leave the voting to everyone else.
People were concerned that this would lead to "hard feelings" and a new kind of "abuse". I still stand by vote negation, but obviously it takes a vote war to get some people to see the problems I saw 6 months ago.
I think vote negation is better handled at a post-level than an account level. For instance if you negated @berniesanders' votes you would be crippling the Curie curation guild.
The veil of "good" that those who do wrong hide behind.
The person who owns @berniesanders is not some evil cartoon character bad guy. And Dan's disagreements with him doesn't make it so.
He sure types like one. Please go review his comments. (on the block chain)
Doing wrong isn't a permanent state. Indeed.
I'm stealing that quote and tattooing it on my first born child.
Know what's ironic about that? I wrote a post supporting vote negation that @berniesanders upvoted for a tick due to a curation guild. He realized it later and removed his upvote.
Yeah, that's a fair point. Maybe after some time has passed, we can now revisit some of the arguments about negation, but on a post-level, rather than an account-level. I would entertain such arguments.
The argument is here, in this post. Dan's downvoted posts that others have upvoted. That's the negation.
You're such a smarty-pants!
Link: https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/negative-voting-and-steem
How would it cripple curie? I noticed they don't have bernie or nextgens votes on almost any of their supported posts. He only upvotes the curie post which should really be declining payout too imo.
Most of Curie's stake comes from the @berniesanders and related accounts. Without them, the votes would not be as high powered. It was his stake that founded Curie.
and wht does he get in return? I don't think its fair to represent this as pure charity
Then why does his vote not appear on steemd?
I could be missing how curie works
(nest reply)
Curie is not upvoting their own posts with their full available stake right now. But some posts that are voted by Curie get a berniesanders upvote.
So I'm not wrong. He's not even part of the guild, he just does what any of us could do, go through the curie promoted links and select the ones he wants to upvote. From what I checked it wasn't a lot of them! Just some as you say. And this is the good deed everybody jumps to in his defence? That he sometimes upvotes curie promoted posts?? And his charge is to be the first to upvote curie posts every single day for curation reward.
Nice. Sure Ned votes for those posts as often if not more often than him!
That too. In that case at least things are more on the surface and visible.
@dantheman Negation would be promise breaking for this platform. It's literally blocking a person from excerising the only promise made by this platform, i.e. you can buy and exercise influence.
A much simpler solution would be split out downvoting and flagging and make both require a comment explaining why.
If you did this there would be no problem here.
"I'm downvoting this because it is redundant, low quality and does not deserve the fraction of the limited reward pool it has earned. By downvoting this I am redistributing the pool to others."
That's all flaggin is in this case right? A redistribution of someone else's earnings to those who may be more deserving, needy or whatever but lower profile?
I mean seriously, would @ozchartart forgo payment for a day if he knew it would help @deviedev get her little sister out of jail?
https://steemit.com/life/@deviedev/jenny-jump-up-is-in-trouble
I know I would.
Point is, keep doing what you're doing but take a second to explain why, each time.
You can always go into the chamber and change the "N SQUARED" curve to not approach infinity so fast
to bring a little mortality to the current STEEM god population.
This would be the single thing that would drastically improve steemit.
Fair enough.
Now the problem is going to be even harder to deal with. You have accounts powering up that never intend to make a post or comment in an attempt to shield themselves. Everyday steemians have no defense against this and seeing it happen is a strong deterrent to investing .
Once content is here that "powers that be" want silenced it will be no problem at all to power up the largest whale ever known. Remember, the Clinton's have over 7000 youtube accounts backed by Soros money.
This ain't the BBS days of trolling Dan, these people are well paid and far beyond petty whale wars we see today..
Steem on..
I have also been making the case of the need to counterbalance voting power. There is some very sound game theory regrading the need for tit-for-tat reward/punishment.
Well, I feel confident you can find a solution. I am just not as confident it will be accepted by the community.
We're all in this together now, but some are way deeper than others :)
Thanks for your attention.
we don't have any mechanism to deal with conflicts that cannot be resolved via a computer screen.
Talking with each other is essential to deal with irreconcilable differences.
@the-ego-is-you Nest limit reached.
have you ever considered the need for a conflict resolution specialist?
No offence, but don't we already have that "in theory", with whales, flag back at yous, trails, guilds, specially made bots and a crowd of people who end up saying the same thing over and over again?
It doesn't seem to be working so well for the moment and I'm very hesitant to add further centralization to that mix...
Much rather, I would like to see a sensible change to how downvotes are displayed and what effect they have.
There could be a community service sort of thing, where users can vote on disputed flags for very small STEEM rewards. Once a certain amount of people have reviewed the decision and found a 75% favour in one way or another, then the damages(payout and rep deduction) could be applied--if the flag was agreed upon that is. If a flag is overturned, there could also be some sort of penalty, applied to the one who produced the flag-- for example, the weight of the flag is reversed and applied to them. This would discourage people from flagging for insignificant reasons.
There would be no way to abuse this because the whales could not use bots to manipulate the results.
There may have to be a lot more users before that could be implemented however.
Thats not a solution. The solution is what youre doing right now -- downvoting crap sockpuppet accounts when they make crap, overrewarded posts. IMO, its long overdue.
The system already provides a means to negate a vote that you disagree with. Casting a vote in the opposite direction.The vote negation thing, IMO, was a cop out. It was a way to downvote bad content without having to sign your name to a downvote.
It was also potentially hugely abusable. What happens when the guy you describe as prone to tantrums decides he doesnt like someone so he's going to take away their vote (which he can do, if theyre a non-ninja, with just a small sub account that he doesnt use anyway)
part of being a leader is coming to terms with the notion that sometimes, maybe even often, youre going to make a call that some people don't like. And youre going to get called a shithead.
This would completely undermine the whole concept of a decentralised blockchain as well as stakeholder governance. I would be completely out, as (I imagine) would many others who support Steem for the philosophical ideals it represents.
Yes, that would be a complete disaster.
Disagree.
Can you elaborate on that?
I'd rather not ;)
...but here it goes, I don't think that it would be a complete disaster.
Your comment didn't elaborate on how it would be a complete disaster, so I really have no basis for counter-argument.
I simply fail to see how it would be a disaster and, as you offered up nothing as an example of how/why it would be, I see no reason to build up a case, so to speak.
So what?
We're after the masses, not you and the few others whom share your ideals.
If we lose one for every 100 that we gain, it's a win.
You're in the wrong project if you think Steem is just about mass appeal. It is about reshaping the world.
You may wish that it is so, but I don't buy it.
Money is almost always the root motivator and I wouldn't bet against it here, regardless of what various people claim to be the true motivator.
Without decentralization there is no money. Might as well invest in liberty dollars.
[nested reply]
I don't care about ideals or definitions of "money" versus "currencies".
All I care about is keeping the wealth that I've accrued and these "liberty dollars" have done a fine job of holding their value long enough for me to do just that. Furthermore, I see no law of physics that states decentralization of X as a necessary mainstay. As, during every period of man, the best bet is to diversify investments, because there's no knowing what the collective greed of humanity and its systems will allow to transpire.
If, for example, all the world's governments were to decide to make investing in crypto-currencies illegal, then I, personally, wouldn't want to be one to challenge their authority - call me a coward, if you want, but I value my life outside of bars.
I'd rather have the current system than some committee of administrators. One of Steem's strengths and most interesting features is its decentralization not only of the network, but in stake-based voting and reward influence.
I'd rather the flag be done away with. A flag is supposed to mark something so that someone can later come and review it, that doesn't happen.
Rather than flags, it should be the community that decide whether a post is valuable. If the accumulative weight of downvotes outweighs that of the upvotes, then the post should be made invisible. But, no payout or reputation should be effected until the payout cycle ends and some sort of calculation is done based on the communities upvotes/downvotes.
I also feel that while payout should be tied to STEEM Power, this particular sort of thing should be tied to Reputation.
The problem or lack thereof (with the system), IMO, is one of whether it can or can't be "gamified".
Currently, the system is set up where, if a single user has enough SP, he/she can essentially shut down Steemit. Imagine if Bill Gates were to drop 0.1% of his wealth (somewhere around $50 million) into SP, what he could do (censor) with that amount of power. He could essentially quiet the voice of all the Steemit community by voting down posts with several 10 million+ SP sock puppet accounts, or by simply down-voting at X% voting weight with a single account.
All it currently takes to kill Steemit's chance of success is a single, wealthy, "mal-intent". I can just see Mark Zuckerberg waiting to time his entrance. With just a drop in the bucket for Mr. Zuckerberg (a few tens of millions of dollars), he can almost guarantee the failure of one of his potential, up-and-comer, competitors.
Ok, but that's speculation. Let's deal with reality until it changes.
Why not calibrate the system to negate that possibility before it ever becomes a real problem?
Because the current system works with the current environment. If the environment changes the system can choose to adapt. That may sound reactionary rather than proactive but it's better to be so when proactively changing for something that may never come would reduce the utility and openness of the blockchain.
[nested reply]
Hmm.
Still speculation, but what if the future environment doesn't allow for the necessary adaptions?
I say make it code that no dictators can come into existence, before it's too late, but perhaps I'm too myopic regarding how the system really works and what kind of power SP really provides. I'm envisioning a total take-over of witness positions through sock puppet accounts and, therefore, total control over if/ how the platform adapts.
Am I way out in left field?
I see your point of view a little better now but I still maintain that the way upvoting and downvoting works now is preferable to compromising it for a far-off potential scenario.
As an investor this doesn't sound bad to me.
Maybe not for the small few, certainly not good for the masses.
It's like being sued by Bill Gates, do you A. Run out and hire a good lawyer? or B settle ASAP ?
No one in their right mind wants to jump in a whale war from scratch, you wouldn't either if you had to buy steem @ $.015
It would lead to large demand and price increases for STEEM. Even as a small investor you would enormously benefit from the resulting price increases.
This is not entirely hypothetical; apparently similar things have happened in games where spending money gives you an advantage leading to an "arms race" and very large revenues for the game.
Socially it may not be the best thing for the site but as an investor (of any size) that kind of demand would be nothing short of wonderful.
I think the true purpose of this site is an advanced war game. Time for me to get a day job so I can buy my way into being the whale that I already am in spirit.
In a sense, I personally think so. Not a violent or even malicious one really at most times, but a strategic melting pot for different ideas.
However, this is why I probably have to disagree with smooth, as he seemingly suggests that buying flag power . . .
. . . would necessarily be a good thing. If this is all this "war game" will be about, then it will be more boring than Risk and ultimately collapse.
...until it starts to effect (affect?) you directly.
Having a whale "follow-flag" (I love to coin terms) you, as a dolphin (or less) is analogous to a strongman competitor, or professional MMA fighter, bullying your average man, of average build/ fighting ability. True, these "victims" have the choice to train and/or hit the weight rooms to place themselves closer to par, but everyone and their mothers know that there's less than a snowball's chance in hell that equality (of competition) will ever be achieved, regardless of his/her motivations or efforts.
But we're missing something here on Steemit, which the "real-world" analogy has - the victim can call the police to handle the bullying. Follow-flag dolphin, on the other hand, is shit out of luck.
Apparently this precedent exists and has led to high demand in some MMOGs. So I simply do not rule out the possibility it could lead to high demand and large price increases here, and if so that is definitely something that investors would like. Remember investors are not necessarily posting on the site at all, so need not be combatants in the flag fight you describe. The role of investing is distinct from the role of social platform user (though of course there is overlap as well). I'm not claiming necessarily that it would happen.
Hmm.
Well, if most of the social platform users tag out from Steemit, due to these (hypothetical) malicious flaggings, then there's nothing to invest in other than what essentially amounts to "vaporware" (no real value).
I think it's clearly a key to keep the majority of the social user-base happy, no?
EDIT addition:
Also, I'm not convinced that what works in MMOGs will correspond one to one with what people will support when they have thousands of dollars at stake and real flesh to protect.
I'm not even claiming that it works in MMOGs (consistently at least). It was pointed out to me that it does happen in some cases, so I commented that if it did happen here it would be good for investors.
I'd also note that it is very speculative at this point what will build a user base that is significantly above zero (on the scale of successful online social platforms) as well as what would keep such a user base happy. This has not been demonstrated at all.
Competing with established platforms that are more specialized to the task of focusing strictly on user experience is not an easy task. Steem/it needs to focus on and somehow exploit its unique advantages. In a big way.
I agree with your point of view @dantheman. Thing that I disliked about ozchart is that he only shares the overview or basics of the market and I think what people need is more technical stuff that they can believe and can do further predictions. Being an intermediate trader I feel that ozchart need to do add some more details like RSIs, Chart patterns, volume, trend, possible ways the trade can go and other technical stuff!
Just a short thought on this:
It's good that whales think and act differently. There is less chance for collusions if the whales don't like each other's decisions.
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this, Dan. The flagging without comment was disturbing to many. Of course, to see the flagging of your comments was more disturbing and clearly asinine.
As a founder and a whale, as well as a user/member, you have to wear more hats than most of us. It's a balancing act that is easy to forget and difficult for most to empathize with. Many will hold you to a higher standard than they even hold themselves, simply because of the hats you wear.
Keep it real, open and honest. Integrity always wins in the long run.
Good points, @anotherjoe .
Sometimes it's difficult to visualize being in the other's shoes.
@ozchartart is the only author I flagged and muted so far on steemit. No quality.
Flagged because OP chooses to perpetually ignore any counterpoint, and it is not worth arguing. Downvoting is much easier.
Well, flagging is the best way to bring attention to something. So, it tends to work the opposite direction.
Upvoted for visibility. No one should be flagged for stating their opinion.
Fomenting divisive hostility and unproven and harmful accusations of "abuse" and of being "bad whales" against easily identified (even if not named) individuals goes beyond stating opinion, but honestly flagging or not flagging this post doesn't really matter other than for the one doing the flagging to express an opinion.
The irony in your mistake here is hilarious
I think you misunderstood @williambanks's post. I believe he meant he was upvoting my comment for visibility. But I beat him to the punch.
The only reason I upvoted with full weight is to discourage others from downvoting my post to invisibility. If someone does a 'sybil' attack with downvotes (stifle your laughing I'm trying to be serious!), shouldn't their explanation be visible?
Yes I did
@smooth I'm just unburying a comment with my upvote, not taking a position or stance on it. That's all I'm saying in that comment.
Yes I misunderstood
@dantheman Thank you. When I talk to investors and they see you as CEO flagging pricing and market information such as ozchartart, they assume you are trying to hide something.
I can respect this explanation and will point to it when investors ask why this information is being hidden.
If you would please look at adding an option to "downvote" instead of flagging, especially for content that should not be censored just knocked down in value a bit. In otherwords take away some payment, but do not hide the content, I could totally get behind that.
In the meantime, I'm literally begging everyone here...
Don't flag naked. Explain why you're flagging and what people can do about it. Otherwise that flagging itself is just passive aggressive abuse. Have a spine, stand tall and explain why you went to the trouble of flagging. It'll prevent hard feelings and promote discussion and community.
My 0.2steem on the matter.
Good points made. I've made a slightly longer comment in this comment section, with a few other suggestions as well.
I think declaring why you flag is most important when it's not due to simple spam/trolling etc.
The flag wasn't hiding the content. But I do agree it should be visually understandable. It should be obvious that it's a down vote and that there is no authority to report abuse to. It's a very simple change that would just make things clearer and there would be much less need to explain how the down vote differs from the up vote.
I flag The Dollar because he steals money from innocent people.
I applaud you @dantheman - This is Leadership and ethics in ACTION!
Long Live @steemit Inc.
Please, can everybody in this thread remove the phallus from their mouth right now.
Only Joking - please don't flag me, haha!
Can't find it, sorry.
Ouch.
Funny, but downvoting ("flagging") because I don't think the comment is worth over a $1.50.
Thanks to your flag, I upvoted it with 100% voting weight, more than canceling your action ;)
Hehe there you go ; ) Marketplace of ideas
F ja! Long live STEEMIT Inc.! Let us lay waste to our real enemies!
You are a hero standing up for Justice. Let's think long range and make the platform great. Reward valuable content and flag useless content.
Well, for what it's worth, @ozchartart is back, this time in a SBD snatching role, trolling on Steem.chat asking to send SBD in return for ??? (whatever). He asked me to send him my current balance of SBD in exchange for mucho SP! Not sure if this is legit, but it seems underhanded.
Can we please stop using the concept of flag on Steemit? It's a downvote. The downvotes on his posts were not "flags" as the concept is used on other, centralized websites. The use of "flag" on Steemit is basically outside of the de facto definition of the word (and icon) on the rest of the web, and as a result has caused a lot of confusion and backlash.
It seems that the team working on Busy has caught on to that and will try to seperate the flag from the regular downvote.
Thank you for trying to find a truce, and also for attempting to bring some balance to the trending page.
Thank you for doing a proper investigation. I always knew something was up.
Its interesting that this is not the first time Dan has flagged this type of content. What is interesting is the lash back this round while the other guy is powered down and left.
https://steemit.com/scam/@the.masses/if-some-whales-could-just-upvote-themselves-all-day-and-get-away-with-it-would-they#@jackhammers/re-themasses-if-some-whales-could-just-upvote-themselves-all-day-and-get-away-with-it-would-they-20170108t124345624z
Thing about anarchy is anyone can start a group, guild, trail but the current ones are powerful so it's not easy. Just like Capitalism. Funny
And if people look at who is doing the flagging you can get a pretty good sense of who is totally prepared to game the system at everyone else's expense.
A proper investigation?
Seriously WTF
I thought that this was a social networking platform. The last I checked, friendships are a part of the social nature of humans.
Yes, it is good to be friends and to share. But part of being social is supporting the entire community not just your buddies. Whales have greater responsibilities in this regard than other individuals because their actions carry so much weight.
Are you saying the whales in question haven't done anything for the rest of the community? Just for their friends? Have you heard of Project Curie?
I don't know any of them personally yet they have supported my mediocre posts cause they are aware of my work outside of the platform to bring users here.
I can't remember a single vote from you in the 8 months I've been here though.
And it's impossible to do both?
Welcome back!
And then you have people like @thisisbenbrick who will flag any content against the whales just so he can get more votes from them. The worst kind of users
If I could upvote my friends to the trending page on a daily basis at the expense of the other users experience this would be an anti social behaviour. There is nothing "social" about nepotism. It's pretty harmless for the minnows and even the dolphins, but you're in a position of responsibility if you have enough SP to have a powerful influence on general user experience.
I vote for people I know and don't know all the time.
If you can't vote for what you want, then there is no incentive for anyone to buy steem, power up, gain influence, and reward the content you like.
It's not that you can't it's that your stake can be countered and your vote causes conflicts within the community when you're unrealistic about the value of your friends posts.
You're not looking at the bigger picture. If you're not voting in a manner than makes the platform attractive to the outside world then you are causing damage to your own investment by voting in your self interest (which in the long run is not in your interest). Nepotism within any community is unattractive.
And the last reason to invest would be to protect an investment we have not yet made so the argument that anti social voting behaviours increases demand is just ludicrous.
Correct. Which is why we will need to change Steem drastically. Not to remove this factor entirely or to make it a utopic socialist wet dream or anything, but there are problems with this and they are right here in this posts comment section.
(Not refering to anyone in particular, but to the behaviour that said system tends to feed)
I just want express my joy on this reliever statement coming from you:
"I created Steem to give it away. I designed a system to intentionally include as many people as possible."
Thanks for creating the platform.
This is honestly a good portion of the reason I don't spend much time on posts on Steemit @dan or have brought over a fairly large following I have built up over the past 8 years on other platforms.
We have seen these socket puppets accounts over shadowing genuine contributors for a very long time and it eventually turns most people away from the platform.
You are in a tough position I must admit in figuring out how to try and control/ fix but still allow things to happen organically without getting involved.
I made a few comments in the past that the main thing that will kill this platform is "greed" by the big whales from the start. I still stand by that. I sure hope people figure this out before its too late.
Meanwhile the Steem Gnome is out and about draining the reward pool:
Another way to mitigate the effects of the "collusion" would be to upvote more with your accounts. Maybe you can check out my latest nature/photography post and get started there? :)
I have been up voting more with my accounts and recently started up voting content with @dan. I greatly prefer to reward the good than punish the bad. Unfortunately, game theory requires me to do both or good guys lose.
Understandable. And I'm glad that the accounts are being used for upvoting. In my opinion, the flag wars don't do a whole lot of good, but it's your stake and their stake, so you can all do what you want with it. At some point, however, both sides will need to evaluate whether or not what they are doing is beneficial in the long-run. And I don't mean "beneficial for the platform," because that's something that's not easily measured or measurable.
Wasting voting power on up-voting and down-voting the same content day after day results in nothing but lost potential for both "investing" sides. Surely, an agreement can be reached that doesn't involve perpetual up- and down-voting. I just don't know how such an agreement can be reached. Eventually, one side will just likely give up and move on. If that happens, my posts will still be there waiting for the extra upvoting power. :)
"Wasting vote power" is kind of a misnomer, as the reward pool is still paid out to those posts where there is the greatest consensus for a payout. If there is disagreement on some posts, such as @ozchartart's, other posts (such as yours) gain in value.
I was referring to the voting power of the individual users, as in, the percentage of their power meter. Is that what you're talking about? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you right now.
Replying here to @smooth
I very much agree. The more freely we express ourselves (in this case by votes) the more the system is informed by a wisdom of crowds effect. In fact there is value to just seeing what is controversial, for example in dating sites it has been shown that a high level of disagreement over attractiveness is a better predictor of who gets the most dates than the aggregate score alone.
Yes, I know what you mean. My point is slightly different. Perhaps it is okay or even better that voters who disagree simply express their individual views rather than decide to engage in a 'collusive scheme' to amplify their vote power by both agreeing to not vote.
No one does that on other sites such as reddit; some people upvote and others downvote, resulting in a net score. While vote power isn't limited there (I think; afaik reddit's current scoring is opaque), attention is.
In fact, having both opposing votes present contains useful information; reddit has a "controversial" ranking which shows content getting both up- and down-votes. Given a healthier downvote economy here, such a thing might be equally useful. I know I'd certainly be interested to see where the disagreements lie.
Individually, yes it would probably be better to agree to not vote and save vote power, but I don't see how this helps the system as a whole.
Nesting.
I agree that what while talking things out is great, unless we actually change the system itself this will just keep on going forever.
am I a "good guy"?
No last I checked you were a good girl though.
at least someone is validating my concerns......
Everyone has a little troll inside of them that screams out occasionally.
haha, probably the smoothest comment in this thread!
Well, technically, @smooth's would be the smoothest by default. But I'll take a close second-place smoothness.
@ats-david A walk in the Park: My Journey through images volume 11
Is that from the future? I'm only on Volume 2 right now! How long have I been sleeping?!
😅
Hello Dan,
while I agree that ozzies post earn a lot money, I think that most of the whales value his stuff because they are crypto addicts. we had the same discussion with another guy's posts when ned flagged him.
I have been one of the fortunate bloggers who were supported by @smooth for a long time. many have cried that i posted 4 post per day but I build the rewards to build up my reputation and help others in the process.
In the past when I was a super Steemit N00b and a super minnow I challenged you and even made a post about that you as a founder should decline payouts it is great to see that you listened to us and are declining payouts on most of your posts.
haha here is the post: https://steemit.com/steemit/@knozaki2015/why-is-dan-receiving-usdusdusd-for-sharing-official-announcements-of-steemit (just found it again)
It it good that you address this issue but I think eventually every blogger will have his ups and downs. ozzie has a run, might have secured some whales supporting him, but that support might end anyday. so I think we could just see how it works out.
In the end the whales are here for profit, so they will support someone else if ozzies is not bringing in enough voting rewards
the OZcharts are pure shit!
Not worth anything - if my analysis people came in with that kind of crap, I would have fired them.
I support dan 100%
Was this the Investor / Professional Trader speaking or more the Actor/ Entertainer/comedian ?
First one and then the other.
As much as I don't think fyrstikkens comment above is worth 10 cents (literary in this case, no offence meant), it's true that the information they provide likely will not be of any value to professional traders or investors.
However, although they don't make any attempts at prediction, let's remember that a lot of people still watch financial news networks that don't produce any more valuable content than @ozchartart. If we are to be honest, about the only value provided by most financial media today is entertainment value or for the temporarily uninformed to get a quick look at what happened in the market place during a specific period of time.
No matter how we want to price such content, this is exactly what @ozchartart is producing. Is that worthless and "pure shit"? No, but I normally wouldn't pay for it myself.
All this days I wait to hear what @ozchartart has to say.
He is the center of discussion right now and has not responded yet(?) I am starting to believe he is really an AI account(?)
Maybe he is here with his sock puppet.
He might be, but let's be more careful to use that term I think. I've been called a sock myself a couple of times and it would be unfortunate if simple namecalling without evidence supplied becomes an efficient way of silencing users.
I've commented and got no response. He does sometimes respond to positive comments but they are rare. (considering he trends))
My comment wasn't negative but just explained I was down voting in dispute of the over valued votes.
I agree with you about ozchart's posts. There have also been incidents where he vindictively flagged users that he felt were encroaching on his territory or mocking him (myself included).
me too :) - OZ is a dick.
Showing your maturity again I see. Perhaps he is, but then so have you been many times.
Care to link, if it's not been altered since?
https://steemit.com/deepspace/@bacchist/i-m-no-chart-expert
That is the flagged post...
Well, to be honest, any bot could have produced what you did there so unless you have proof that it was vindictive flagging and not due to some other reason...?
This is not to suggest I think what he did was right. But had he done it today I would simply have shrugged, because since the changes to guidelines for the "flag" I'd be willing to downvote/"flag" that post for being rewarded too much. -Nothing personal and not that it would actually matter a whole lot when I did it.
interesting.
A while ago I found a post from ozchart and i considered it as useful in a way.
I voted it up and wrote a short comment.
When i saw this account frequently blogging i was voting on it per bot and sometimes read through it.
After about 2 or 3 weeks i noticed the same you are talking about here.
This were way to much rewards for these kind of frequently content.
So i stopped voting on it.
It felt similar to steemsports.
It is very important to take care of these kind of problems and to discuss them. (including with votes).
i am not flagging ozchart or steemsports
But i do understand your worries !
In this case it is enough for me to stop supporting these kind of content if you and others are also taking care of these kind of problems :)
good job sir
thank you for your honesty and this open discussion
Dan I respect you for posting in this manner even more than I did before.
Let them whine and complain of injustice. You have the right to flag and upvote what you wish. Thanks for speaking out against mediocrity.
Collusion around posts that involve little effort and give very little back to the community is sufficient reason for action to be taken. It is sad when repetitive posts, that may have taken a great deal of effort initially and deserved sizable reward for that effort, continues to receive such good favor even when effort is no longer required. On the otherhand, there are countless smaller players, folks who legitimately wanted to do something of real value to many of our smaller members, doing something that is time-consuming, unassisted .. but were pretty much ignored and gave up.
Thanks for the explanation Dan .. if there are whales using their STEEMPower to 'create' cash-flow via a third party in this manner, then it is definitely something that should be challenged!
My comrades and I salute you for knowing what is best for us. Thank you for keeping the evil whales at bay. Maybe you can come over to my house some time - pick out my clothes for me - tell me what to watch on TV or what to eat. Maybe you can look through my book collection - I am sure there are at least a few pages that wouldnt suite your taste - I understand - you can rip them out. Don't worry Great Leader - we understand the hardships involved in becoming the Father of a great nation such as Steem. Imagine if the evils of Ozchart, @Steemports, ChinaDaily, Curie or anyone else who is popular were allowed to run unchecked!? Our leader is so great that his vote is the only vote that matters! Fuck the whales - especially the ones who talk back! Nobody can hide from our Great Leader - once in his talons - the die is cast . Steem on! Dan and Ned forever <3 <3
@dantheman, why is it that everytime someone has these discussions, we fail to address the sybil attacks happening on this platform? These whale account have multiple voters following them and of which are mostly fake accounts belonging to said whale or another one user. They, by having multiple accounts under the one umbrella, are manipulating reward pools and metric value of the platform for their own benefit. Can we please address the issue of automated voting from multiple, such as the 76 accounts that flagged you in succession, so that we can create a solution. Without the "fair scoring algorithm" suggested in the whitepaper, this platform is worth less than it should be. Gamification is a serious issue and needs to be fixed if we're to reach a community with true subjective values.
Sybil is largely addressed by stake weighted voting. All that is left is the "appearance" of support. Of the 76 downvotes, it is pretty clear that only a handful of people are behind them. Down voting a discussion that isn't paying anything out is also indicative of striking out to "hurt" rather than simply engaging in the discussion.
Most of the responses are "against me" and not even attempting to address my concerns.
Why reject the notion that voting is an expression of opinion? Why pull out the victim card and assume someone is hurt you (and in doing so attempt to delegitimize their actions), rather than respect that they disagree with you, and consider that maybe when intelligent people disagree with you, you are getting something wrong (or at a minimum failing to approach things in a manner that is community- and consensus-building)? Setting aside automated or explicitly strategic voting (clearly neither of which apply here), much of the time people vote for something they like or agree with and vote against something they dislike or disagree with. Do you consider it an attack meant to "hurt" you if people disagree with you or dislike what you say or how you say it?
Some of us feel that the problems with your post and the approach to the subject matter is more important than "your concerns", which frankly are rather trivial. If @ozchartart weren't on the trending page someone else would be. The same rewards would be paid out, and in much the same concentrated manner. Maybe the content of those replacement posts would be "better" but that is really inherently subjective. I'm not particularly a fan of either but I probably slightly consider @ozchartart as bringing more value to the platform than @krnel. Is my opinion "wrong"?
It has been known for more than a year now, that Dan simply cannot get the notion that disagreeing with him can be of any value... EVER!!!
He believes disagreeing with him is destructive and evil by definition... period, end of discussion.
I believe your concerns are warranted, but there are bigger issues to be addressed other than what we "think" is valuable or not valuable. Until we truly have a fair voting algorithm free from gamification, how are we to clearly examine how votes are being spent and how content is being valued? We can each argue what we think should be worth x amount, but the fact remains, we each value content differently. Until we can clearly show that value, the voting problem stays a revolving door. The amount of posts right now, created in the last few hours about this topic, are clear evidence that this problem is not going away until we find a solution for diluted metrics.
Also, no matter what your stake is worth, if you're diluting the metric data of the platform, you're engaged in sybil attack. People are farming curation rewards right now with sybil methods. Denying this is to ignore what's going on.
All voting is stake weighted. Whether they have 1 account with 100 STEEM or 100 accounts with 1 steem the potential rewards are the same. I actually believe there is a slight bias toward having it all in one account.
Our mathematical analysis of the system shows no advantage to sybil. It does manipulate the display ranking for "voted" sort order. We will probably remove that due to sybil issues.
How about the curation rewards gained from multiple accounts each with 100 STEEM, as opposed to one account with 100 STEEM? The person with 100 accounts benefits more, long term, and can manipulate rewards more heavily for other users, long term.
And the fact that it does dilute the metric data of the platform, should be a huge concern for Steemit, inc. The trending page for example should be ordered by real metric value, as it's not a fair representation of what the people are actually interested in. The trending page, as of right now, is a representation of individual value, not collective value, which is what "trending" means; the community, as a whole, is interested in it.
didn't I already explain this to you the other day
Curation rewards are also stake weighted and offer no advantage for dividing accounts and actually give slight advantage for merging funds into on account.
It shows what stakeholders, as a whole, are supporting.
Please read my latest post, in which I discuss these issues at greater depth:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@senseiteekay/steemit-value-is-subjective
I would appreciate your input.
thanks a bunch for sharing your opinion on the matter. I was not fully aware of the reason nor the internal issues at hand. this brings light into the subject, especially for me. Thanks a bunch for your diligence and dedication. All for one and one for all!!! Namaste :)
Thank you for speaking out and acknowledging the issue... with that being said
Sounds like we need to nominate @ozchartart for TOP 5!!! and @ozchartart and his whale supporter should nominate @dantheman as well
76 flags??? nevermind about nominating @dantheman everybody nominate the peeps flagging the crap outta this.
I'd nominate myself for the free publicity and to put more emphazis on the things I wrote about in that comment at the bottom of this page, but I'm afraid of what the price would be.... ;)
lol, it's all good @the-ego-is-you in fact, I could nominate you for that little disagreement we had in steemitchat a while back... but it doesn't qualify or compare to some of the "dbags" already nominated.
the post has 2 hours left... join in, it's for funzies.. nothing bad
I'm glad to hear. ^
We all do have equal rights to vote here. The only challenge of being the boss is that your opinion will always be associated with Steemit, Inc.
You are a role model, a leader, somebody a lot of people look up to - that´s a big chance and also responsibility. And that´s why every little step you do is able to produce a huge wave (like this one we are talking about right now).
I think the key is transparency, because it creates trust. And that´s actually the beginning of any crypto market. People love drama and drama is not good for the platform´s wealth. I´ve read words like fear , war etc. during the past hours. Your post will calm them down. Well done.
Conflicts are human, and as long as human beings are around we will have to deal with it. It´s just about the how. I think if we treated each other like we would like to be treated, we were on the right track... Factual, constructive and polite.
Exactly. Thank you!
It looks like the same 76 people have a problem with this post that had a problem with my red tide post about institutional posters. I guess dan must be a "sexual moralizer" too
Hopefully this calms the storm
I love this post.
I say, which of you have the heart and the steel resolve to help me hunt whales?
We need harpoons, we need boats, we need crewmen!
Bring something to protect your legs.
Hey... don't start none, won't be none.
^^And we can start by hunting that leg-eating sonofabitch.
Sigh. We've gone over this. You were TRESSPASSING.
It is never too late to get recognized.
@dantheman thank you for explaining yourself, but these type of posts show exactly why Steem can not possibly attract more quality users than we are doing right now.
Clear cut agreements, in specific contracts, is an essential piece in advanced economics and society. The Steemit.com website doesn't needs a typical "TOS" (as a centralized social media website would have) but even saying "The rules are: there are no rules" is better than leaving the confusing messages we've seen so far and encouraging these types of what for a long time now have been called "flag wars".
Seldom do I find myself arguing for a "social contract", but if such a contract is to exist, a much clearer such is exactly what is needed to be communicated to users via the user interface itself rather than via a constant back and forth of posts (that most members can't or at least won't keep up with), to accompany the actual innate "semi-contractual" workings of the Steem blockchain.
Further more, the semi-contractual parts of the blockchain need to be more clearly explained as being dependant on the witness "hives" social agreements, as developers and witnesses decide to implement or discard features.
Last of all, to make this possible in the first place, the actual contracts, the most rigid parts of the blockchain itself, need to reformed as to not confuse new users or make a single whale able to shun new posts or users.
My proposals would be
Replace the flag icon on Steemot.com with a downvote button.
Replace the "trending page" with a "high(est) priced" page.
If you deem it necessary to maintain an information box for the downvote, make sure it only mentions the actual contractual workings; the mechanics, what a downvote is currently guaranteed to lead to.
Implement a separate flag button that only affects rep and visibility.
Make changes that prevents an individual whale user to hide posts or change the rep of another user unless at least 1 other (preferably a certain % of nonfollowing users) agree with the first individual user.
--Changing the system either to discourage upvoting ones own content / or stop users from making money from their own upvotes could and should perhaps be done too. But I think the previous points should take precedence.
Also see this post about requested improvements for Steemit
https://steemit.com/steemit/@barrydutton/steemit-needs-please-comment-with-your-ideas-to-improve-steemit-e-3
Whales have to much power. I think it will kill steemit.
Mayby logaritmic scale will help reduce power of super whales? In my opinion 2 Upvotes 10k SP should be equal to 1 Upvote 100k SP.
This is great! Nothing like some good authentic drama to generate more interest in the platform. I am all about free market but clearly this is not that yet. I am happy to get a better reward generation for my well thought out well written posts than by somebody auto generating content purely out of greed. Intent is very important in this topic, was his intent to provide the community with solid helpful content or to make a quick buck?
Maybe it was both? Often, the best way to make easy money is to provide value.
Either way, I don't personally see much value in his posts but maybe others do.
@dantheman
I see value and artistry in trolling. The trick is being a smart audience. If the audience gets riled up by trolls, it's no good for the trolls and for the community. However, trolls have the power to instigate valuable discussion and debate, almost in a sacrificial manner. In a way no one else can.
Throughout history, many of the greatest progress has been brought about by contrarians and troublemakers. It's no different for social networks. Alas, Steemit is not mature enough yet to handle provocation.
We discussed trolling over here yesterday. Maybe you'll find it worth reading.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@son-of-satire/is-there-a-place-for-trolling-on-steemit-discussion
Dan I am glad you did this. I am also wondering if you ever saw the Steemit Children's book I made that describes 'blockchain"? Here's one drawing I made that represents you programming the Steem code:
Nice picture @stellabelle
May I ask why you have flagged SteemSports, including the post where both liquid and SP portion of rewards are given away?
The games you flagged consisted of high-quality content, which requires hours of skilled work.
This comment is not an attack, and you don't have to respond to it - I am just curious about your reasons.
I have far more understanding for Steem Sports. The content of Steem Sports is orders of magnitudes greater than the content of ozchartart. Anyway, I will not flag them without first bringing my concerns to the community for feedback.
What are your main concerns in regards to SteemSports? Do you have any suggestions on how SteemSports can improve?
My concern is more based upon the game theory of repeated rounds of Steem Sports leading to an effective collusive voting pool that most people do not recognize.
Steemsports is a scam...
Gamed system that recieved way too much for payouts.
So many people created multiple accounts to vote for both outcomes. I am guilty, and so is 95% of steemit.
How does that create value?
You want to write about sports, then write about sports... but to have a rigged game with massive booky rewards is just a pathetic money grab.
I get that it takes time to create a steemsports post, but so does everyone elses posting that recieves pennies.
This comment reminds me of putting equal money on red and black in Vegas. re: primary topic reminds me of team blackjack card counters and the effect on the whole table . . . .and thoughts of full tilt come to mind
Due to the exponential nature of the rewards, only a handful of people have had any effect on SteemSports posts, and those people, have had no economic incentives to vote, as they would not receive any financial reward other than the curation reward, which is a standard feature for any steem post.
You are right about the incentives, which would in fact encourage people to support SteemSports, and thus make games and the SP redistribution possible. The premise behind the games is that user engagement and token distributions are a net positive. Since the whale support in this case is altruistic in nature, can it really be labeled as collusive in negative sense?
I thought it was great at first, but they just kept pumping out the posts as fast as the voting bots could upvote them.
I get what you're trying to say, but let me point out that altruism can be seen as an outright destructive behaviour and collusion as a method of survival.
It all depends on context and having coherent definitions of said words.
Dude (Dan), you seriously flagged Steemsports BEFORE you saw oz raping this tender young blockchain?
Dang Superman, Look before you leap (you're squashing the sincere newbies)
I'm a neewbie and prefer to reply to posts before reading other replies. This and another post I read tonight triggers disappointment and curiosity about what is really going on. Is there a dark side paper perhaps on the dark web that I keep reading about but don't dare venture into? What is the motivation for anything but positive development in such an intriguing opportunity? Find common ground again please to all involved. Or is this just a social experiment without informed decision making?
Generally Steem is a very positive place, unfortunately it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. This is why I believe it is important for any community to be pro-active in encouraging positive discourse and curbing abuse.
It is particularly important that people feel safe. Having a whale that will attack with vengeance and without regard to objective discussion very toxic.
Okay, I have to ask then, because this is curious to me.
How come you do not support @steemcleaners, but @berniesanders does?
It is really simple, why do politicians donate to charity and make other grand public gestures?
I prefer to take responsibility for my own voting and don't need a 3rd party voting in a way that I might not agree with.
I didn't want to take a side in this argument, but this comment made it very easy for me to do so.
I think you misunderstand me. I said support, not donate. @berniesanders does also donate, correct, however this isn't a grand public gesture, as he donates quite quietly. He never had to, and we never asked him to; he is not a politician, nor even a top witness.
But by support, I mean something else entirely. I mean spending real TIME and EFFORT for MONTHS helping to fight actual plagiarism, fraud, identity theft, and spam on this website. Your website. It's interesting that you say you take responsibility for your own voting, but historically when you upvote things like identity theft, we call @berniesanders to downvote it. Because he actively tries to find and remove real abuse.
In fact, I have never seen you genuinely take action about fraud on the platform. Looking through @steemcleaners logs (where we log others' actions, not just our own), you have made zero effort to curb actual abuse or fraud. You argue that it's bound to happen, but you have never spent an ounce of time finding and downvoting it.
We each have jobs to do, it would be impractical for everyone to. do everything.
In a self-governed world the power / authority is distributed between all participants. This includes rights and duties. We are all police men, lawyers, judges, accusants and defendants (and cleaners) at the same time. We can bundle power and try to push ideas together. But everybody should be responsible for their own doings. We are all 'Robin Hoods' here, distributing value according to our beliefs, subordinated to the community´s common beliefs. A seperated and independent institution (and even if it´s just a 'cleaner') actually deny self-governance, thus our main ideology. In my opinion everybody should take care of the community´s needs and wealth, not even being asked for. That´s at least my steemit self-concept.
I can't answer for @dan but I prefer decentralised and disorganized policing, as in users policing as individuals. Although I recognise that there are advantages to both approaches.
Likely for the same reason that someone like fyrstikken gives money to a select good steemers or kly reformed his online presence. To gain more reputation and influence.
See discussion over here https://steemit.com/trolls/@stellabelle/steemit-s-secret-weapon-turning-trolls-into-functioning-members-of-society#@the-ego-is-you/re-stellabelle-steemit-s-secret-weapon-turning-trolls-into-functioning-members-of-society-20170102t203221109z
Yes that is exactly right. Now please stop doing so.
That's funny, Dan. I'm still waiting for a response from you after you encouraged me to write you to help me solve my issues when I was posting under @jlwkolb. That would be positive discourse. You need to practice what you preach. Talk is cheap. What ever happened to following through?
Upvoting because we need newbies in particular to chime in on this discussion.
What a surprise. Thank you for the encouragement. Look over your shoulder, I'm following you
Yours is the first where I have seen your values posted up front - refreshing.
You're very welcome. I wish others would be way more clear when it comes to their values.
(I will only upvote the two best of your comments, because there are some bots that hang around posting a few comments the same way you just did.)
Thank you. I am looking forward to reading what has transpired today.