You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: BUILDTEAM: Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy - BURNPOST Challenge inside!

in #burnpost7 months ago (edited)

I've seen you talk at length with Smooth about vote selling and I echo his views. Essentially, vote selling is just incompatible with honest curation and such services completely undermine the proof of brain process of our ecosystem.

If vote selling pays better returns than honest curation, why would you expect people to curate honestly? In turn, if there are very few honest curators, what is the incentive to produce good content? These services take 100% of the voting rewards and splits it between the vote seller, service provider, and vote buyer in a way that's completely content agnostic, similar to self voting or circle jerking. And unlike the latter two, these services have a tendency to undermine real curation even more by interfering with content sorting to a greater extent.

I did not understand the part about burning 20-50% of author rewards (setting beneficiaries to @null). If I'm understanding you correctly, you wish to have a farm post a day to fund your other services, among them a vote selling network that greatly harms our ecosystem for the reasons mentioned above? And using posting keys from inactive Steemvoter accounts? Even if you burn 10-25% of total rewards on these farm posts (as only the author part is burned), it still feels that you're doing this place quite a disservice. Voting rewards come from a pool which are consensus determined allocation of rewards that would best add value to the system, not one's private stake based returns, nor should it be used for payment directly. Now that NewSteem is here I would anticipate considerable resistance to this scheme over the long term.

Like Smooth did in your previous dialogue, I would also advise that you redirect your considerable business acumen to projects that would benefit the ecosystem. Perhaps a more robust curation initiative?

I understand that vote selling is currently likely by far the most lucrative business initiative, but if it remains so, it comes at the cost of virtually ensuring that we'd never correctly function as an honest content discovery and rewards proof of brain system, and would likely lead to our demise.

Sort:  

Interesting. I put some accounts on auto-vote whom I visit once in a while to see what they are posting but want them to get my vote in case, I forget or am busy.
I don't know if I understand that correctly. But is what you are saying that I support an abusive principle with putting some authors on auto-vote?

Do you have any recommendations where I can go to use auto-vote and where they charge me a fee for that? I would be wiling to pay some amount of SBD for this service. Or do you recommend to delete all auto-votes and from now on curate only manually?

No you're not taking part in abusive behavior if you're just automatically voting for people who you've consider to have built a reputation for decent quality content over time and trust their upcoming posts.

Abusive behavior generally comes from vote selling (someone pays you $10 to get roughly a $10 vote), vote swapping (eg you vote my posts $10, I vote your posts $10) and post farming etc.

Good. Thank you very much. Sometimes things here get so overly complicated that I start to see UFOs where there are none.
I am not always in favor of every post but I do compensate that with previous content and my overall impression of the person I have my auto-vote on. None of them acts in a way I'd have to become alert.

Vote selling and swapping is so far clear. And I heard a lot about the multiple accounts abuse and stuff. But what is post farming? Is it that someone sets up a blog and then only fills it with the same contents on a regular basis and gives himself upvotes/buys votes/sells votes = harvesting artificially and worthless stuff?

Yes.

Basically these practices all share something in common: they're content indifferent voting behavior.

When you vote on your own post farms, or swap votes, or sell votes, you don't care about the content itself. If the content isn't the thing influencing your decision, and this becomes widespread over the entire platform, than we have a worthless platform.

That's basically what happened for the last 2 years but the new economic incentives gives us tools to fight it, such as free downvotes.

Thanks again. ... I don't vote for myself. Neither my posts nor my comments. It's a principle I follow. I never downvote anyone of whom I in general have a possibility to approach in person first.

Maybe if people would have behaved in this way we wouldn't have the problems we are facing (but who knows the hidden benefits of that whole thing). But I find it nevertheless an interesting experience and I think people learn a lot here in terms of the issues entering an unregulated space. They face the great issues of society which is reflected in democratic history. We experience here what the settlers of unknown territory once went through who grew to communities and nations. Maybe those mistakes were needed in order to realize what we blame others for is not that easy.

By the way: Actually, the reward pool: Does anyone know it's size and when it'll be near emptiness? If you find that a silly question: I rarely hear it asked ... :)

The reward pool doesn't empty

It comes from inflation, the currency increases at a certain rate, around 8%pa right now, but goes down over time.

About 65% of that goes into the reward pool split 50/50 between author and curators.

Yes, it was a silly question, wasn't it? :D

From all the high arousal on this platform, a newcomer on this platform might assume that, no?