Response to Pharesim's Downvote Propaganda.

2개월 전

Investors are limited. They put money in to take money out, and this gives Steem value. So if an investor gets a high reward, they are doing it with their own money. See rate-limited voting in the whitepaper (15/32). If you and I go in 20%/80% on a pizza, and I paid 80%, I will get 8 slices. If something happens which prevents that, you’ll never share a pizza with me again. Don’t expect three slices of my pizza without my permission and then expect me to not call you a communist. This is simple math, don't give me that common core B.S. The sense of entitlement that communists and socialists have is ultimately their own undoing, this has been proven time and time again. Don't shit on me and tell me it's chocolate rain.

VIDEO: YouTube.com/user/lazytown/videos

VIDEO: YouTube.com/channel/UCTicia16WV-69vQwjK1Z0Gg

If you want to end the "voting abuse,"
don't reward investors with large votes.
That will solve the problem of investors.



The above post is derived from my comment left at this thread.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

lol what xD

so I paid 20% but dont even get my 2 slices? fuck that

·

"lol what xD
so I paid 20% but dont even get my 2 slices? fuck that"

Sure you do, vote yourself up.

Post and math updated to
reflect a 10 slice pizza pie.

20%=2 ←and→ 80%=8

Point is, with a 20 vs 80 percent investment,
you can't look at the value of my self vote &
compare it to yours with an expectation of
equal outcome. Investment = entitlement.
PoB is the fact I invested in the first place.
Proof of not brain, is to never self vote.
Either that, or it's altruism, and for the
most part, capitalists are not altruistic.

·
·

"...with a 20 vs 80 percent investment,
you can't look at the value of my self vote &
compare it to yours with an expectation of
equal outcome."

I've never seen a better example of a strawman. Please point to any example of anyone ever demanding equal outcome that has anything to do with Steem.

How about you acknowledge the actual problem - Steem has hemorrhaged users, and that has kept a vibrant market for Steem from forming, keeping the price low. This is despite a trickle of rewards going to users, and the immense power of financial incentives. That means that the user's disgust with the flaggotry and profiteering on Steem has exceeded their disgust with Fakebook and Twatter, which should make the devs feel bad, because they are bad.

Playing logical fallacy games isn't going to fix the problem, even if you feel like you won an argument on the internet. Fix user retention. Make users feel rewarded, not scammed, and that will fix user retention. How is self voting gonna do that?

Lambos for whales will follow, and you might even get a Yugo, too.

·
·
·

"I've never seen a better example of a strawman. Please point to any example of anyone ever demanding equal outcome that has anything to do with Steem."

Well now, isn't that what the #newsteem policy of free votes is trying to do?

"How about you acknowledge the actual problem - Steem has hemorrhaged users, and that has kept a vibrant market for Steem from forming, keeping the price low. This is despite a trickle of rewards going to users, and the immense power of financial incentives. That means that the user's disgust with the flaggotry and profiteering on Steem has exceeded their disgust with Fakebook and Twatter, which should make the devs feel bad, because they are bad."

I do acknowledge the problem of hemorrhaged users, and I think the free flags and everyone running around using them will cause not only a hemorrhage of more users but also a hemorrhaging of stakeholders.

"Playing logical fallacy games isn't going to fix the problem, even if you feel like you won an argument on the internet. Fix user retention. Make users feel rewarded, not scammed, and that will fix user retention. How is self voting gonna do that?"

What fallacy are we talking about? Also, just an FYI self voting was baked into the original design UI. So if you do run across a stakeholder who bought more stake because of that design, then try convincing them what they're doing is wrong.

I say fix steem by correcting trending. Change downvote back to a flag. Call the upvote button a tip jar, and add a Reddit style up and downsort button which only serves to sort content. The upsort downsort buttons will accept all votes as equal, and allow only one vote per post and per IP address. The way it works: You read a post, and if you like it, you tip it and upsort it. If you don't like it, downsort. Upsorts and downsorts should be anonymous. I think something like this would cause people to fix trending on a daily basis. Also, people would have less reward envy with their in their secretly harbored expectations of a more equal outcome.

·
·
·
·

"I say fix steem by correcting trending. Change downvote back to a flag. Call the upvote button a tip jar, and add a Reddit style up and downsort button which only serves to sort content. The upsort downsort buttons will accept all votes as equal, and allow only one vote per post and per IP address. The way it works: You read a post, and if you like it, you tip it and upsort it. If you don't like it, downsort. Upsorts and downsorts should be anonymous. I think something like this would cause people to fix trending on a daily basis. Also, people would have less reward envy with their in their secretly harbored expectations of a more equal outcome."

None of those things will actually better distribute Steem and create a vibrant market that will raise the price and create capital gains.

The ninjaminers are the only ones that have Steem in sufficient supply to do that, and they don't seem to have grasped the concept, or they're doing something else entirely that I am uninformed about. You're tuning a radio in a car about to plunge off a cliff hoping that will change the outcome. Enjoy the outro music.

Self votes are cancer in society. We see it is a terminal diagnosis from extant user retention. Here's how to cure it: make post and comment payouts limited, below the point at which it is worth financially manipulating the rewards mechanism to profiteer from it. While that can be improved by giving 15 Steem to new account holders instead of delegating it, that doesn't even matter either. End profiteering and Steem will grow. As long as profiteering is baked in, no matter what form it's baked in as, Steem is doomed to fail.

·
·
·
·
·

There is no "end to profiteering", the fact you are even trying to shows how little you understand economics and human nature. The system should be designed in a way to encourage people to be as greedy as possible while still benefiting the ecosystem as a whole, which is exactly what the white paper is talking about. They are still doing work, they are still buying and holding steem power, they are not a negative, in fact they are a net positive overall.

·
·
·
·
·
·

The cost of extracting rewards using stake only has to exceed the rewards of doing so for it to be ended. It's not even hard. The Huey Long algorithm would do that overnight.

I assume when you refer to 'they' you're referring to profiteers? I don't think any substantial stakeholder in Steem other than the original ninjaminers is in a net positive position right now, and they're only positive because they spent nothing on their stake.

I am mystified that you seem to be extolling the virtues of the actors that have squandered the incredible opportunity Steem presented, and turned it into what we have today. User retention is below 10% YOY. It's surprising just how badly Steem is performing on the market given it's use case. It's really some kind of evil genius shit to have kept it to such awful condition.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

It's performing so poorly because it has had an inflation rate north of 10% through much of its existence. You are comparing it to coins with low single digit inflation rates. Of course it is going to perform worse. The reason steem has performed poorly is likely due to a whole host of reasons, but if you need your users to act altruistically for your platform to succeed, you platform is not going to succeed. It needs to be designed in a way for people to act like normal people and it not cannibalize itself. The current incarnation is not that.

·
·
·
·
·

As far as voting for new authors and new smaller users, the current setup actually discourages that as you need to get your vote over $4 or so to even reach a linear vote. It actually disincentivizes voting small users. A prime example of how worrying about abuse is hurting growth.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Exactly, but it's not worrying about abuse that impelled HF21. It's encouraging profiteering, and pleb newbs have no stake to plunder, so are excluded from benefitting from curation post HF21. It's not an example of any consideration of increasing user onboarding and retention. It's simply pretending Steem has any value without a market to create that value. Profiteers are extracting more and more Steem by stake weighting as it becomes worth less and less as the market for it contracts.

It is so obvious to me that I am half convinced it's deliberate. Exchanges are dropping Steem. How long can this go on before Steem and Golos are entombed side by side in the dustbin of history, has beens in the contest for market share?

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

If new users want to earn more rewards, they simply buy more stake, simple as that. Otherwise others on the site can feel free to tip them for their work if they feel it is worthy of such.

·
·
·
·
·

I disagree, self voting can be an indication
that you appreciate your own content.
It was openly on the UI as an option to
tick prior to publishing the post.

·
·
·
·
·
·

Vanity is not a socially commendable trait, and only bootlickers admire the vain. Humility is admirable, and generates organic support. The two are of opposite affect on society, and the latter is beneficial, which is why it generates organic support, while self voting provably draws ire and disapproval.

You're fooling yourself if you think your opinion of your work isn't biased. Remember who the devs are working for when you consider code and tick boxes: ninjaminers.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

I don't pretend that people are not bias. If a self-voter creates a quality post and self votes it, it's not necessarily vanity. If a self-voter creates a shit post and self votes it they may feel entitled because their stake allows them. Fix the rate limited voting, and that should solve it.

·
·
·
·
·

The free downvotes and encouraging that they are used liberally is the cancer. It's creating an undesirable atmosphere. I agree with what planter said tbh.

"Self votes are cancer in society. We see it is a terminal diagnosis from extant user retention. Here's how to cure it: make post and comment payouts limited, below the point at which it is worth financially manipulating the rewards mechanism to profiteer from it. While that can be improved by giving 15 Steem to new account holders instead of delegating it, that doesn't even matter either. End profiteering and Steem will grow. As long as profiteering is baked in, no matter what form it's baked in as, Steem is doomed to fail."

^ This is how the markets evolve. You can think about Steem only withen the realm of the box. Outside of the box there is the token itself and it's value in the larger market. Appealing to people's self interested by allowing larger votes to bigger investors is what grows the value of the coin. Trending can be fixed to show more valuable content without free downvotes.

·
·
·
·
·
·

I am vehemently against free downvotes without free upvotes to counter them. The reason no one wants the Huey Long algorithm is the lure of whale votes, despite that certainty of profiteering that comes with them. Gamblers gamble. It's what they do.

Investors don't gamble. If allowing larger votes to more substantial stakeholders drew investors they would be here by now. It's not factually correct. What draws investors is an opportunity to participate in equity that will increase in value, capital gains. As long as profiteering compromises Steem's ability to increase in value, investors are not drawn in.

Trending doesn't confront investors. Capital loss or gain does.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·

If a sorting system is implemented like the one I suggested. One equal vote per IP address (and per post) up or down to sort content only, that will result in a trending fix. It will highlight only the cream of the crop as far as posts are concerned. Nobody will be able to overpower it with their stake, and upsorting or downsorting won't effect rewards.

This is my suggestion because eliminating shit posts isn't possible, but what is possible is presenting a higher quality trending with a more intelligent sorting function. This will create a valuable product, similar to how a website is valuable based on the content it shows.

For example, if the Drudge Report only linked to shitty stuff people wouldn't care to visit the Drudge Report. As far as voting rewards are concerned self vote was an option baked right into the GUI. I don't see anything wrong with it, and if there is, we can fix it at the rate limited voting level.

But bear in mind, if you limit it there, you also limit all the altruistic people from distributing that much in rewards. This way people who care about Steemd's value can work to upvote articles that have made it to trending more meritoriously. I still think it serves to keep the self serving self voters because they invest in Steem and this combined with their HODL causes the token to have value. Last thing we need right now is more selling.

So the rewards being overwhelmingly extracted by whales isn't unfair, even though they got that stake through the ninjamine.

That's a silly contention, and I utterly refute it.

Furthermore, the continued concentration of Steem in the wallets of whales continues to drive down the price, worse for whales than anyone else. Want the price of Steem to rise? Get it into the wallets of as many people as possible, to create a market for it. Be the 'Helicopter' Ben Bernanke of Steem.

Regardless of what is allowed by utterly mutable code at present, or fairness to crabs in buckets, building a growing social media platform that is an effective mechanism to distribute Steem via upvotes is what will work to create capital gains and get the greedy bastard ninjaminer whales their lambos, and bags of rice for poor people on Steem everywhere.

Tweaking rewards curves, having curation rewards at all, or justifying flags is irrelevant, as all of that bullshit just keeps driving users away. User retention is the only metric that matters. All the rest derives from that.

·

Well, it would have been wise of Steem to delegate to communities. However, that ship floated the fuck off after the villagers armed with torches and pitchforks threatened to fork them out of their money. Another good example of how downfucks, fucks everybody. Threatening to fuck people out of their steem (justly acquired or not) caused them to power down. Similarly, the liberal usage of flags although it's trying to solve a perceived problem, will only serve to create a bigger one, and that'll be disenchanted content creators packing up in droves because of one piss poor hard fork. I mean, I can almost forgive the 50/50 because it uses people's self-interest to encourage curation. That was pretty smart, even though I'm feeling kinda fucked, I was already getting paid in peanuts and now it's soda can tabs, and I can't even eat these. But.. the free downvotes, and encouraging everybody to become deputy dip shit has to be the worst idea ever. It's kind of like when police stations forbid candidates with a high IQ. It's a recipe for disaster paving the way for a culture of stupidity.

·
·

You are not wrong. It will be interesting to see what the hordes with free flags burning holes in their pockets do now that the bots are gone, and they've had a taste of blood. What could possibly go wrong?

·
·
·

We'll see, I guess, it'll be a pyrrhic victory for the winner. Also there won't be a winner because in flag wars nobody dies. So it will be a forever exercise in futility. Some of these fucks will still be flagging each other when steem is at 0.002.

·

It's not unfair in the least because if you want to earn more you simply buy more. It's actually a very sound economic idea and one that is likely to have better staying power than upvoting high quality content (whatever that is) regardless of investment. Most of the users that win the content lottery are likely to be sellers. Showing a direct link between steem purchases and income increases is a much better approach, economically.

·
·

I'm not sure you understand what fair means. It doesn't mean good for ninjaminers. It doesn't even mean profitable. Your statement of reasons it's fair simply don't address fairness at all. It's not fair for folks to make Steem out of thin air and then tell folks if they want some they have to buy it. It's apparently legal, but that doesn't make it fair.

But let's discuss your rationale for buying Steem. Joe.user comes on Steem looking forward to the phat upvotes he's sure his dank memes will earn him, and is disappointed when no one upvotes or comments, except Steemcleaners because he didn't make the memes himself, so now he's a plagiarist. He's supposed to think 'well, if I buy $millions of Steem, I can just upvote myself!'

But, he didn't come here to pretend to admire himself, he came here to be admired by others, and he's not a millionaire, he's a NEET that steals memes from iFunny. How's he gonna buy enough Steem to make self voting worthwhile, and why should he overcome his innate revulsion to doing so? More importantly why should we encourage him to do so? No one in the market is going to benefit from his self voting, except the ninjaminers who sold him the Steem. His impact on the price of Steem is negative, because he's reducing the rewards of content creators by taking them for himself. He's not upvoting anyone else with it, that would reduce his ROI. If he delegates to a bidbot he only encourages vote buyers incapable of generating interest in their content organically, and again, he's extracting rewards that would otherwise go to good content creators.

I don't even understand what his motivations are supposed to be in that scenario.

What link between ninjaminer Steem purchases and income increases do you think exists? The ninjaminers sure aren't buying Steem, except maybe to enable pump and dumps. They are probably the only substantial stakeholders in Steem today that are not in the red, and only because they paid nothing for their stake. You'd have to go back years to get to Steem price below what it is today, and the time value of money doesn't put buyers then in the black now. They're in the red too, because if they'd have invested those funds in sound ventures they'd have made a better return by now.

Investors that actually have $millions to invest are likely to have some ideas about how investment should be undertaken, because either that's how they got $millions, or that's what they were taught by whoever they inherited it from. What they likely understand is capital gains, and self voting is a far sight different.

Again, I'm not seeing what their motivation to undertake profiteering is.

The extant world and the people in it didn't just erupt from spacetime fully formed. The history known to folks in this world includes the proven success of capital gains at increasing wealth for those that do it right, like Warren Buffet who became the richest man in the world thereby, and creating, building, and maintaining civilization itself is a byproduct of capital gains in a very real way.

Somehow these people in this world are supposed to be attracted by the idea of self voting and profiteering where all the examples of that revealed in history are offensive to society, and destroy the companies and lives of their workers that have built the civilization of which they are part.

Well, it hasn't worked in the last three years, and I don't see why it will anytime soon.

·
·
·

Who said anything about fair? I am talking about economics. Please show me a model of how what you are suggesting is going to make steem sustainable long term. People arbitrarily voting new users for the sake of quality content likely will actually drive prices down even faster than people mostly being able to earn based on their investment/stake. It's simple economics.

·
·
·
·

"Who said anything about fair? "

You did. It's what we were discussing, before you decided to move the goalposts. You are being disingenuous, and failing to address issues of import because you don't like the facts. You can do that without my participation.

Upvoting users is how you grow the market. It's how you encourage them to market Steem to potential users as well.

"People arbitrarily voting new users for the sake of quality content likely will actually drive prices down even faster than people mostly being able to earn based on their investment/stake. It's simple economics."

Then the white paper was nothing but a lie, a fraud to draw in rubes to fill the golden parachutes of the ninjaminers, and social media does not exist.

On the contrary the FAANGs prove that social media is the most profitable business model on Earth today, and a simple glance at market cap reveals that fact. I will no longer substantiate your fallacious and erroneous claims by responding. Go live in your pretend world by yourself, and quit trying to drag me into it.

·
·
·
·
·

Those are companies that derive value from advertising. Steem is the equivalent of the upvote on those platforms, which has no value, even though there are billions of users. You seem to be missing that important point. What good are users if the currency has little to no value? Content sites already exist without a currency and they do a much better job at rewarding "quality". In order for the currency to have value it has to appeal to investors, which it doesn't. If you could somehow tie the advertising revenue to back the currency, then you might have something, which is exactly what Voice is going to do, but apart from that you need to appeal to investors if you want the currency to have value.

·
·
·
·
·
·

There are not billions of users of Steem. Social media is not the companies whose vast profits derive from it.

As much as I desire to engage with you, I am unwilling to continue further, as I am certain to succumb to my native urge to insult you, as you do not acknowledge and gain from reasonable criticism, which trait classes you as a troll, and that is the only reasonable response to trolling. I don't wish to engage in ad hominae, and neither to comment just to read my comments.

When the above comment availed you of proof that social media is the most profitable business model that exists, you dodged the relevance of that fact to our conversation and at this point I cannot support the conclusion you did so out of failure to grasp that relevance, but deliberately.

You're not missing my points. You're ignoring them.

I followed your replies, you speak a lot of truth. To me it simply comes down to economics... and a system where the more you buy the more you earn sounds a lot more sustainable than one where downvote police (mostly arbitrarily or some silly standard of quality) select which content is worthy of rewards and which ones are not, regardless of the creators investment or lack there of.

·

"I followed your replies, you speak a lot of truth."

Thank you.

"To me it simply comes down to economics... and a system where the more you buy the more you earn sounds a lot more sustainable than one where downvote police (mostly arbitrarily or some silly standard of quality) select which content is worthy of rewards and which ones are not, regardless of the creators investment or lack there of."

Amen to that!