Thank you but what is the menaing of the list. are you againstt it? I don't see a problem in self voting?

It's disgusting! I NEVER upvote my own comments.......

😂

Of course i'm against it. The more people self-vote, the less rewards authors get and the less value the platform has. If everyone self-votes, there wouldn't be any value at all.

But it's a hard topic and will probably do a separate article about it soon.

Honey if I looked like you, I'd upvote myself all. day. long...

let the developers decide on this , or whom it may concern , or let there be public vote .

Why when I post is my vote always on my posts ? I never do it manually but it's automatic. I'm new here just noticed this and Linda confused

If you don't think your own post is worthy of an upvote, you probably need to put more time and effort into producing a post you would be proud to upvote. I don't have an issue with anyone upvoting their own content, it they believe it is worth an upvote.

Same for comments to posts. If you believe your comments are worth an upvote, then that is your belief and you can vote as you believe is best.

It looks bad in my opinion if more than 99% of your upvotes are for yourself, and you spend less than 1% on the community. That looks like greediness.

Best solution is probably the path you are already taking.

Publish a list of the greedy every week or month. Those folks are then free to change their behavior or not change their behavior as they desire.

With knowledge of who is behaving greedily, the community will have the information it needs to decide if it wants to ostracize or celebrate the greedy.

And that is all we need for a solution.

A decentralized solution based on information. Simple.

We won't need long extended debates or discussion, on different opinions of right and wrong in this case.

Just make the information visible on measured results for "greediness behavior", and the community can decide what it wants to do collectively, by each person using their own best judgement on how to handle.

STEEM On!!

DaveB

Most ridiculous post I have come across, some of the folks are actively upvoting other accounts... they made the investment, they deserve to earn the reward... folks need to stop looking at what others are earning...

Buying SP and then self-voting isn't investing, it's just draining funds from the reward pool that could (should?) be used to reward authors, otherwise STEEM isn't worth anything. Voting on others earns you curation rewards without any negative effects to the platform. The less you vote on others, the more you're hurting your own investment.

This isn't about what people are earning, it's about the way they're "earning" it.

I have to admit, this is fascinating. I am confused by the first number......what is it? In my case the total SBD is $6,400, so is that the amount that I have given overall by voting? And the$256 is the amount of that $6,400 that I gave to myself through upvoting my own post?

Go to "Submit a Story" and there's a checkbox "Upvote post" under the rewards combo box.

Post like these create bad blood, the data is tilted in a negative light, some of these folks also bring a lot of quality content on a daily basis, I am pretty sure you upvote your post as well, they made their investment in SP, don't make post in bad blood like that

Nice comment Dave, give yourself a pat on the back... And an upvote.

I don't understand what is wrong with voting for yourself. That does not prevent you from voting for others at all..!

When you publish a post there is a box you can tick or untick. Tell Linda not to be so confused.

You got it :)

In your case it was $6,485.92 SBD worth of upvotes, of which$295.80 (4.56%) was on yourself. That's entirely acceptable since you're a fantastic content creator, but in my opinion ideally people would stop voting on themselves entirely.

P.S.: may i ask how you found this post? Did you get a notification that you were mentioned in a post (even though i didn't include @ on purpose)?

it's true. That is why the algorithm was set up the way it was in the beginning by Dan. He was trying to avoid this very thing.

What's wrong with rewarding yourself, I would certainly love to upvote myself 10 if I had the steem power but I don't, so it's 1 or 2 cents, if they value their post at 20 dollars and upvote it, then what's wrong with that. I can tell you I have certainly benefited from the upvotes of quite a few folks on the list, and many others. It's not a spread across the ground wealth thing here, part of your earning depends on your investment. You don't know what folks sacrifice to reach at their SP level, don't trump the "reward pool" card.

Sense of pride ?

no i don't get notifications anymore.....
I am a surfer here on steemit, and I followed a bunch of random things.....I have no idea actually.
There's a ton of informative stuff, that is hiding in steemit...

..i m still new, but...sounds to me as the right answer!..even if at last it isn't clear to me how to think about upvoting one self...but to make info visible and let decide the community (or the base?) seems right..thank you..follow you..

no, I found your other post in the "HoT" section, which led me to this.

Well what about these guys not self upvoting but upvoting their 2nd and 3rd account? I dont know what that whole discussion is all about. I believe anyone can do what they want with their share. Some will contribute others wont. If selfupvote would be taken off steemit , people think twice about holding or selling. And steem would be back at 0,10$

extreme selfish behaviour will indeed ruin this platform. Those that have like 98% of the rewards going to themselves is exactly the kind of thing that could make this place irrelevant. Looking at this info actually helps me understand human behavior better. I think @teamsteem is a great example of how one does not need to self-vote, even though he could. I guess I still have a ways to go.

Voting for yourself occasionally is not the problem, however abusing this is a problem for the healthy growth of the system. It makes it like a pyramid scheme. It is easier to identify the most selfish writers by simply using: sbd to self/total sbd×100.

Ah ok, so unless a lot of money comes in in a short period, content remains undiscovered on SteemIt, that's lovely haha

Voting for my own post is something I always do, but I rarely vote for my own comments (I did today to bring it visibility, but as a rule, I tend to avoid it). I feel this is fair, as I only have a 4% self-vote percentage. I think going over 10% is probably a bad move. Hmmmm....there's a lot to think about.

..first of all thank you for posting this info and getting in in this theme..at last it isn't clear to me how to think about upvoting one self..i agree with the comment of @davebrewer..seems right to me that the community has the freedom to decide collectively..

A really useful post @calamus056. There are clearly many differing reasons and justifications given for self voting but in my opinion I would rather receive the rewards from others for having produced good content or even making a good comment than reward myself. I am not here to judge anyone and some of the justifications may be valid to some degree but I fail to see the reason that the function exists other than to purposely allow those who invest to milk the reward pool as a reward for investment or in order to fuck with everyones sense of morality and decency. If anyone can provide me with a better explanation I'd be very pleased to hear it! :)

Have a great day my friend!

To be fair, he only self-voted 0.84% of the total rewards he assigned. That's almost negligible.

As you said we need to focus on the massive abusers for now, starting at people that self-vote more than 50% of the rewards they assign.

Good post man. It's important that this stuff gets brought to light. People hopefully adapts their behaviour to something that's more beneficial over the long term.

Self-voting is just destructive for the platform, at least over a certain threshold. I think anything under 10-20% is okay, as it's a way to promote yourself.

..and by the way..what do you or all of you steemians think about people begging (sometimes almost barefaced, if you ask me...) for following, upvoting and resteeming them??..sure that everybody wants to have followers and so on, the whole thing it s about..

What is that supposed to mean? Jackass.

yes, it's quite amazing how he does not abuse his delegated SP. An example for us all...

No i stopped voting on my content, it's not going to change much. If the content is good it will get rewarded eventually anyway.

I think there is one thing that is missing here from the conversation....people are free to buy their way in, and then upvote their own posts for visibility. I think the creators of the platform would not oppose that. What I see in your info though, is the prevalance of users who are not spreading out their upvotes! That is a bit disconcerting.

Anyone can be a top rewarded author without buying any SP. It's all about loyal followers.

You can also kill people, is it smart though?

Wow! Such a big amounts!
My received $0.5 is a drop in the ocean compared to this🙂

You are insane man, how did you calculate this? Hahaha.

I would Strongly suggest that, avoid self voting. It will help your post gain in value. After HF19, self voting on posts will result reducing the post's earning every day. Posts earned $600 on first day will end up with$300.

Upvoting is a personal choice. The default is to self-upvote. If you've got a good post, and it's not getting attention, then do something to get it attention, upvote it, edit it to "polish it up", there's no harm in it.

Thanks for comment. Back has been patted.

STEEM On!!

Well, with the creative use of language that is commonly used within our Steemit culture I've created a double entendre. One can take this literally or one can derive a sexual innuendo from it (possibly referring to masturbation in this case). I'm very glad you asked, it's important to get to the bottom of these matters. And it shows you have curiosity and a willingness to know more, which is not usually present in people who resort to insults when they don't understand something.
Did I answer all your queries?

Best comment here. I would have been more upset if you didn't upvote yourself on this.

Yeah self voting is just like murder??????

Yup as long as it isn't abusive, it OK. Even though we're all guilty of selfishness from time to time, it can always be improved :)

@clintjunior I like your trolling, but it's a serious problem when too many people (especially big players) do it.

But some on this list don't upvote other at all. They only upvote their comments. Please check the numbers and do your research.

But Dave you still didn't upvote yourself.. Don't you like your comment??

The situation is actually much more complicated than the current analysis gets into. Not to disrespect the current analysis, it is fine for what it is.

BUT, have you thought about and looked into voting behavior in cases where single individuals own multiple accounts and do cross upvoting.

Or what about cases where we have groups of people that have allied to upvote within their own "team", to pull the entire team up independent of the quality of any individual post.

You aren't going to be able to make "rules and laws" to handle all the special cases that people will be able to invent to try to game the system in their favor.

You will provide a valuable service just by posting data on "greediness" measurements. Leave it to the community to sort out how each individual wants to behave after that.

It is a decentralized social media platform. If you don't like decentralized and prefer someone at HQ to make the rules an enforce them secretly and top down; and always in a way that helps HQ, that is a different place.

You want to go to FB, or Reddit, or .....

Really interesting! It is good to have transparency on steemit, so that people can mange informed decisions 🙏🏽

Holy sh*t 11k SBD only from self-voting..

Greed is a human foible that will never be eradicated. A "war on greed" would be as effective as a "war on drugs".

You can't fix 100% of the people, if by fix the definition is make them fit into the mold you deem is OK.

Nothing we can do about human greed, except point it out when we see it.

Behavior may or may not change if people know they will be outed.

After HF19, self voting on posts will result reducing the post's earning every day. Posts earned $600 on first day will end up with$300.

Is this carved in stone for the next HF?

I know, and I completely agree. One day I saw a guy upvote his own comments in a discussion and every upvote was worth $95, and for the original poster who he was talking to - he was only upvoting him$5. I found it obscene! I actually think something must be done.

@whatsup I guess he's horny, you know what Testosterone does to us ;)

I'm not convinced that this is the terrible thing that so many here seem to assume that it is. Look at the full list, there are a lot of widely respected names there. People who've done a lot to build this community.

You think 10-20% is OK. Other are going to say anything over 0% is a crime. Some will say 50% is OK, others will believe higher.

The solution is appeal to some higher power of central authority to dictate a best and final answer. Kinda not in the spirit of a decentralized platform.

Or publish behavior and let the community decide what is acceptable, by ostracizing those that each individual wants to ostracize

Ahh crap, missed that upvote chance. I'll go back and fill it in later, LOL

..yes, there playing in a different league than we..

So is upvoting yourself selfish?

Some of those numbers are out of control. I believe that a restriction on the top amount to be self rewarded is need it.

Well obviously it's subjective, I'm just stating my opinion. I personally believe that content should be able to speak for it self, but one of the main hurdles so far is how hard it is to find content.

I do not want any central authority to dictate anything. I think the market will adjust with its own incentives and disincentives. It's a social platform after all, and social norms and 'rules' traditionally has more influence over people's decisions than actual laws and regulations.

How is this even allowed? Lol

This whole effort is the biggest indication of actual communism that exists. A bunch of minnows telling people that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars into the platform how to spend the money. Not only how to spend it, but that they are entitled to this money. Guess what, a bunch of minnows attacking a whale for doing what he wants with his investment. Tards, and greedy. It is you fools that are greedy and trying to have a power that you are not entitled to without steem power. Grow up. Get more money and dump it where you want it.

Its amazing how the platform could produce such a good income stream for its members. I dont find a problem with this. Yes, I felt jealous because like anybody else in the platform, I also wanted to earn but unfortunately I could not.

I am not against self-voting because I believe its their rights. They had been spending their time in the platform and gained support from whales and turned themselves into a whale too. Some of them had invested money in the platform and its just right to use it for themselves. There's nothing wrong with it, its called reality.

The reason why there are those who mumble is because we are jealous of their earnings and dont worry, its also normal. Its a human instinct.

What we need to do is to invest money too or find ourselves a whale supporters and enjoy the benefits of being a user in the platform.

There's also a lotttttt of spam btw ;)

People think they will make money right away without realizing how "bad" their content is.

In a way, sure :p

Guess what the last column is lol.

Yeah i had the exact same number in mind of 10% as a maximum. That would be acceptable, especially in beta / early adopters phase.

You're the third person to mention approximately 10%.

Thanks for this post Dave..should clear a lot of questions about self-voting...You've got my vote and resteeming.

Yes, i'm part of #project-smackdown and #steem-coop and there's much more to come on voting behavior.

Just upvoted my comment..lol

Thanks for the info! I don't see anything wrong with t a little upvoting,but I do think that the community would do better with MORE of a balance in the way some that make huge amounts of money upvote themselves. I'm proud of the witnesses I voted for that are doing a great job of helping the community! Greed it not my thing. Thanks again.

mmm Something to ponder about...my feelings is either you do or you don't..if the developers didn't want people upvoting themselves or only wanted a certain percentage of self votes, they should incorporate it into to the program. Just saying..

I think that I agree with you on this. I do not have the system figured out so I am not able to be positive. Thank you all for the input. Take care.

Alot of these people have invested alot of money into steem and only want to use it as an investment. I am not saying its right or wrong but you have failed to realize that if you ban this they all exit their postion and thats alot hitting the market and will cause a serious drop. These guys are actually stabilizing steem for the long term. Just think how much risk they have if this goes belly up. There is always other sides to everything that should be discussed. Im not saying i agree with it just wanted to state something i havent seen in the sudden influx of these type of post.

It's horrible. Some people are following 50,000 people. I'm probably going to datamine following stats next.

4 hours of programming, 3 hours of downloading and saving data (2 gigs+), 10 minutes importing and then 2 days of making queries and calculations.

What are talking about? HF19 already happened June 20th.

We know, but there's a problem when people (almost) never vote on others and/or not contribute to the platform.

It's 100% transparent, no censorship possible either ;)

This is excellent information. Good to know. Thank you so much!

Yup and what about the total of $175,181.088 SBD self-votes this month? Read about it in my previous post.

I guess we can conclude that those people are pretty huge dickheads :p

There's also a lot of abusers that vote close to 100% on themselves ;)

No not at all, the word "self" isn't at all in the word "yourself" :p

That's the problem, that's not technically possible because people have multiple accounts.

I am finding this all very interesting and also disheartening at times for the long term benefit of the platform and the masses.

I was messaging people today on an account draining $200 / day some days, on ~ 15 posts/day simply posting everyone else's content and YT videos, not even adding any wording hardly to the post..... and never replying to comments.

10 -15 posts every single day for weeks and weeks, at over $10 and$15/post and the person has about 50k Steem Power also.

So for most people wanting to challenge them, they risk getting flagged by big accounts like this and they have nearly 3k followers also.

I decided to post twice on their page today about it.... you can check my comments tab from a few hours ago.

Because you can get your own content higher on the "hot" list. But people that don't make good content can also do it so that's the problem.

Oh i should just get more money, i would have never thought of that myself. Thanks for the fantastic solution!

If they don't want this to go belly up they should stop self-voting. The more money goes to content creators, the more new potential investors there will be. It's literally that simple.

People can earn a shitload with curation rewards. I bet it's at least 50 times more than the bank pays.

I'm not scared of them. All i want is justice and won't refrain from making my opinion public. I've already got another unfollow (obviously from a user that self-voted almost 100% of the time) ;)

Looks to me like you have a tiny

flag.

The point is, you cannot commender the capacity of someone who has successfully put money into the platform, the only thing you could do, is to gain power and not do it, instead of trying to prevent the actions of others. Be a model, not a dictator.

How?

such an interesting post! thanks so much for taking the time to put this together.... I am really enjoying reading the debate in the comment!
the figures are just crazy!

Love steem on comment, upvote and bring suggestion all best friend anybody please follow me and help anything problem a posting comment it...
STEEM on @zufrizal

It's not about the money, it's about the percentage.

You hit the nail on the head. And also, these people put money into the platform, who are we to say what they can and cannot vote for? This was a tenant of communism.

Dude exactly.

yeah I get that... I like Craig-grants style.... half for himself half for the community... anything more than that I think is a little selfish

it is now your place to shut down these dickheads? what about the fact these dickheads are the ones that put enough money into steem to make it a trade-able currency with high net value? Bite the hand that feeds. I am done with this thread.

I can understand for the newbies who churn out articles to be paid less than $1. I've pumped over 1k steem into powering up, I'm far from breaking even.

But the amounts on that list.. some were crazy.. I wonder what they get from other users as well

Go away then. SteemIt works regardless of the STEEM price. But the funniest part of all is that high percentage self-voters are shitting in their own food and making their investment worth less. We lose so many potential new investors every day when they're unsatisfied.

You concisely said what I have been preaching. Word up.

At least 50% is better than 100% :p

I personally prefer 10% max. I'm currently trying to do 0% myself (been successful for almost 2 weeks now).

Thats what i am saying they are not here for the community thats obvious, what i am curious about if they all left what would that do to the price if steem? I wonder how much steem all from the first group hold. Just gotta think about this like stocks they all liquidate what dies that look like? Just to be clear i am not supporting what they do but it makes me wonder what happens if all the big guys leave.

I think this option should be removed from steemit, or it could be allowed as long as the self upvotes in comments and posts wouldn't be monetized.

Some of these folks, hate what they are not getting... for me, I am happy to see folks earning and expressing themselves, we finally have something that shares the pie... I am more focus on trying to get followers that would actively vote on my content and get the level of making a decent earning... I hope he see's both side, the platform code always finds a balance

If you have put in the time and effort to come out with the comments, then self voting should not be a problem. I must admit that I have done that a couple of times. But if more than half of the total SBD is used on yourself, then there is a problem somewhere. I usually up-vote comments for my post. I suppose the solution is to set a percentage limit say 30% for self voting.

I still don't understand whats wrong and what's right. I stopped upvoting my own posts because of all the hype and I don't want to be blackballed. I'm still just a nobody so I don't think it really matters. Although, I have promoted my own post as soon as I post it, if I think it will be popular lol. I wonder if that is frowned upon also?

Oh I understand believe me as someone who has questioned things on here and lost support because I am not part of the 1% in most ways. In some categories, I am - but not in my heart or daily approach as some of the 1%'ism in life goes hahaha!! (:

I was giving thought to this, since I do NOT self vote as much as some of this would appear, so here is some perspective:

1/ I saw my name on there too and I am now questioning the bots or how that stat is actually calculated because I spend so much time voting for others, there is NO WAY ( I do not think ) --- that 41% of my SBD is coming from self votes, I don't know how else to say it and wonder how flawed that calculation can be honestly.

NOT an attack, just an honest question, if you have the time to provide the bots or math or program doing this etc, because I have tried to challenge some of the practices here, draining from mass adoption and help here, and nobody questions that

2/ I had a shower and thought more about this. I UV my comments at times at low power to pin stuff to the top of my replies so people read them, ie my #SteemitCampfire stuff, where I post food or drinks for everyone in the post to get it started LOL.

Medium power if I really want to be heard in a post.

The kicker is that some people are not UV their own posts upon publishing them since that change took place and I do 5 posts a day on my page meaning that is about 150 posts of my own content a month, at around $3 or 4/vote. That is the bulk of this by far.... and I publish more content and engage more people daily than a lot (most?) people. And I work hard doing that, to help people, and build community..... not take from it.....

It just makes me look bad, and does not distinguish such basal factors.

I think as long as the math is right, etc etc --- what you are providing is valuable, for sure.

Should I UV this post to the top of the comments now?

LOL!!

• Have a nice week Calamus and everyone else. Always try to remain balanced in all things, perspectives included.

Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.

Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.

Good stuff my man, I replied in this thread in a LOT more detail before I saw this reply of yours LOL

--

Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.

Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.

Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.

Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.

Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.

Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.

I made similar comments in more detail in the main reply I made here......... but as a base reply here in a few places:

Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.

Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.

Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.

Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.

Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.

Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.

Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.

Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.

Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.

Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.

yeah same, I don't self up vote at all since the HF19 :) rather vote on other peoples stuff...in the same way I would hope they would rather up vote other people than just themselves haha

If all the big guys leave there's at least 13 weeks mega down pressure on the price and we have to start from under $0.10 again but that's ok ;)

It's more complicated than that because of multiple accounts.

I'd say closer to 10%, but it's technically very complicated because of multiple accounts.

If you mean upvoting your own posts, that's generally accepted when it's not too much spam. On comments people are starting to be against it more and more (unless it's once in a while, then it's fine).

I will investigate if your number is way off (although i think you already reconsidered and think it's fairly close?). Most of the data i verified was fairly close.

P.S.: 40% for someone like you who contributed a lot of content for a long time isn't making you look as bad as you think. I'd prefer if it gets a lot lower though ;)

Add some AI, it should solve the problem.

Cool, I don't think I have ever upvoted my own comment but I have upvoted my blogs, well some of them. Thanks for commenting!

So did I so it was at least twice as good of a comment as you initially thought, LOL

150 quality blogs, I don't have any concerns if you upvote the best, or choose to upvote them all if they are all good in your opinion.

So I read your response as - people can upvote themselves if they want, and the market will adjust incentives if they believe that person is being greedy and abusing the system. Sounds right to me

There are some people ho genuinely give all the upvotes to themselves and this behavior is affecting this community badly.

I upvoted, but I doubt that will pay back the investment you made in time and effort.

I'll link to a different thread that has some conversation you may want to review.

Summary of the other thread - you can't take away self upvoting without radically changing the heart of steemit. It isn't a perfect system, but it isn't as flawed as you might think if all you think and focus on is the worst case scenario. There are dickheads in every system. Make the data visible on who is acting in greedy fashion and the system will move on as is, nothing is really broken.

https://steemit.com/steem/@kyle.anderson/subjective-proof-of-work-some-rational-comments-on-the-self-voting-trend

You got it. You could focus on solving the "single account abusers"; and all that would do is get the people who are intent on abuse to create multiple accounts.

Yes, I have been spending a lot of time replying to comments and engaging as much as possible..Thanks for all the good advice and tips.

Read the white paper. People can invest in Steemit with dollars or time. Both add value. You are obsessing on the folks that bring more dollars and invest less time than you. I believe the point daudimitch is trying to make is same idea as the white paper - both time and dollars add value. And when people bring dollars, who is to say how they must use those dollars for upvotes?

If you over-rotate to the point that only time has value on steemit, and dollars are not valued, that could be argued as another path that will devalue the total platform.

I spent a week very upset about the voting behavior of the whale hendrikdegrote. He was upvoting stuff that was shit in my opinion. Vacation rentals from bookingteam.com Get real !!

But then I realized that if he wants to bring $2.5M to the platform, it is his money and how he upvotes is his business. Not my business.

It will take a lot of time and sweat to grow to the point that you or I have $2.5M of SP based on our blogging skills and the upvotes we get. True dat.

But it took hendrikdegrote time off platform to get the $2.5M fiat, and then he chose to bring it here and upvote as he chooses.

Do you want to chase all the whales away? Will that increase platform value?

Or you want to change the rules so that the only path to becoming a whale is lots of posts and being a top rewarded author, which is the path you are on?

Diversity is good. Everyone takes their own path.

We are at the heart of the matter here calamus056. You can get SP on steemit with either time or fiat. If you don't have fiat, then you have to spend time.

No reason to get upset at the folks who bring more fiat than you are able to at this moment. That is called envy. The partner to greed. Envy is not better than greed, and vica-versa.

The large whales that bring $2.5M fiat and invest in the platform, are the ones that help keep price of steem at high enough level to make payouts interesting, even for us minnows

that is true but them they would have to divide the amount of their steem powers as well.
I think the main problem with self-voting issue is whale which are clearing thousands a week for their votes

Lets talk about a whale that has brought $2M fiat to the platform. What is the "right" amount that that person should be ALLOWED to making from posting per week, compared to the person who brings$0 fiat to the platform and wants to grow just by blogging.

Who is going to decide what is ALLOWED?

Is that decision made by one person (a dictator), or made by a committee (communism)?

You start down a slippery slope when you let ENVY of the whales start to dictate what you think are the best policy options.

Don't be envious. Don't be greedy.

Do your own thing and be proud of what you can do. The community will reward you. If you don't trust the community to make that decision, you should leave.

STEEM On!!

Don't count on it haha. Society is still money driven and lots of people still have a mindset that is wrong. If only more people were like u ;)

The underlying technology of SteemIt already is AI :p

The whole world in fact. In the real economy 10 people own over 50% of the money in the world. That's not good for anyone. Greed is a bitch.

I think you have misunderstood what I'm trying to said or might be I did not explained myself properly.

What I'm saying don't come from a place of jealousy for whales. They are whale for a reason! they have invested their money into this platform in order to I guess get more money! Which is their right.

Still Steemit is a platform in which the goal is generate money from content. However, a lot of great original content slips through the cracks because it cannot get enough traction when the top spots are filled with irrelevant post selfvoted by Whoever.

I realize that I don't have a strong voice in the community, because I fairly new to it. When I write sometime is because I'm interested in knowing the future of the platform and if there will be a chance for new player to reach dolphin or whale status from zero. because if the only way to make moeny on steemit is being a big player whats even the point of writting good content!

Thanks for the financial contribution. Every bit helps!

I just read Kyle's article, it wasn't anything spectacular (the article was great though!). I've heard all the arguments for and against self-voting already it seems. I certainly agree that flagging is the answer, people aren't using that at all right now!

Ideally all people should make whatever the crowd thinks the content is worth, regardless of factors like author name, rewards, popularity, reputation, investment or any other irrelevant factors people could potentially base their actions on.

Certainly nobody should be treated differently because they invested heavily in STEEM. People invest in STEEM for selfish reasons (to potentially make a profit or to gain more power on the network), so there's no reason to reward them more than the revolutionary platform is already offering.

10,000 users that already left the platform because it's not good enough could have brought $250 each over the next years to get the same result. Besides, many of them would bring even more potential investors.

I'm getting tired of the investor argument (not from you personally, I've just seen it 30 times already now). Investing large sums into STEEM gives them no special privilege whatsoever. Large SP holders specifically can currently unintentionally also do a lot of harm, because it's a huge responsibility for 1 person to control 100's of times the average stake and is unlikely to do "as good a job" as 100's of others (for statistical and time constraint reasons).

If you don't think your own post is worthy of an upvote, you probably need to put more time and effort into producing a post you would be proud to upvote

100% this, and also if you think someone else's content is trash and doesn't deserve rewarded the rewards it is getting, that's why we have downvotes.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with self-upvoting, if the content is good. One of the reason to buy SP is so you can boost your own content by voting for it. If others agree, great. If they don't then they should downvote it and your votes (and money spent buying SP to support those votes) will have been wasted.

It doesn't even matter if someone only upvotes themself, if their content is good. Maybe some people are mostly content creators and don't spend a lot of time reviewing/reading/curating other content. There's nothing at all wrong with that.

There is absolutely nothing that can be done against true abusive "self" upvoting (other than downvoting it to take away the profit), because malicious abusers will just move their SP into other accounts and hide what is going on.

The idea of creating 'lists of shame' and demonizing people is divisive, creates a hostile and toxic environment attractive to no one, and serves no useful purpose. There is no way to tell from these lists whether the content is deserving of the rewards or not. The only way to tell is by actually looking at the content, and if you think it is undeserving, downvote it.

Buying SP and then self-voting isn't investing, it's just draining funds from the reward pool

No it isn't. The reward pool is fixed in terms of STEEM but not in terms of value (dollars, etc.). STEEM only gets its value from people buying it or holding it. Without people buying it, you can earn all the STEEM you want from the reward pool, but they will be worthless.

Someone who buys SP and then selfvotes is not 'draining' anything and at best can get back a portion of what was put in. It causes no harm at all.

Investors are the ones who underwrite all of the rewards on this platform. If you are not an investor, or are only a smaller investor, you need to focus your efforts on creating inspiring content that makes investors want to give their money to you. Whatever else they do or don't do with their money (including self-voting) is not your concern and does not harm you in any way. Nevertheless, you do have a downvote that you can use to disagree with what you think are underserved rewards. I suggest using it.

Downvoted because I don't agree this form of analysis and divisive rhetoric is useful content that adds value to Steem or is deserving of rewards.

I couldn't understand the reason why you flagged this post until the very last paragraph on your comment. I now understand your concern when it come's to 'lists of shame', however I found this information to be very useful.
My curiosity gets the better of me sometimes, it's one of the reasons I really enjoyed this post.
Do you think that steemcleaners report is another example of a 'wall of shame'?
If so, do you think it should be flagged as well?
Would obfuscating the name with a generic link like steemcleaners does make it worth removing your flag?

Do you think that steemcleaners report is another example of a 'wall of shame'?

Steemcleaners focuses on actual abuse such as well-documented plagarism. It has clear guidelines as to what constitutes plagiarism, identity theft, etc. I know this because I helped write those guidelines.

This post is nothing like that. There is nothing in this post to indicate whether any of those authors have engaged in any form of abuse, or are actually contributing a lot of value to Steem/it (both are possible).

How can you not see the harm in self-voting? I just don't get it, it's so unbelievably obvious why it's bad. All you have to do is think about what value this platform has if nobody voted on others.

Of course people can do with their money whatever they want, but self-voting just isn't smart (except for content promotion obviously). Your alt account only self-votes 4% and i'll assume your main is similar, so you're a good boy :p

I do have a downvote of a few cents yeah, but i can't do anything against your upvote for example ;)

Yeah my bad, checked on my phone and couldn't see it there.

All you have to do is think about what value this platform has if nobody voted on others

That's not what is happening. If it were, and you posted about it, you would have a useful contribution (though of course everyone would have already recognized the issue most likely)

Someone who votes for good content whether produced by self or by others is not doing any harm whatsoever. Likewise someoen who votes for good self-produced content that is also supported by others is doing no harm.

Your own statistics show that self-voting is awarding about 8.5% of the reward pool. I don't find that suggestive of any problem whatsoever. It is probably a very reasonable number given that the current parameters give people 10 full power votes to make per day. Thus one is being applied to the voters' own content and nine to others' (on average, of course). Seems fine.

your alt account only self-votes 4% and i'll assume your main is similar, so you're a good boy :p

I have no 'alt' accounts (in the sense of accounts run by me to interact on the site and which hide my identity; there are several accounts for things like internal market trading but they all have my name in them). I don't know who runs randomwhale which likes to vote for me. It is not me.

Again, this may be viewed as a reminder to please avoid witch hunts and demonizing people without a full understanding of what is going on.

It's just a list with stats people were curious about. There's no analysis, it's just a data dump. People can do whatever they want with the data.

Why are you trying to fight me? Are you not against abuse? Look at the people self-voting close to 100%, do you think that behavior is beneficial to you, themselves, me and others?

Look at the people self-voting close to 100%, do you think that behavior is beneficial to you, themselves, me and others?

I don't know. It depends on the content. A content creator who produces useful content and upvotes it, but does not spend time reading others' content or generally curating is still a valuable contributor despite 100% self-voting. A spammer who self-upvotes and also votes on others (or perhaps a pair of spammers who vote on each others' spam but not their own) is still an abusive spammer. The statistics in your post by themselves are useless, as is the implication that 'self-voting' or a high self-voting percentage is inherently harmful or evidence of abuse. Neither is correct.

I agree, 8.5% is not that problematic at all. It's just the principle that's important. The few problematic abusers and the incentive problems in the protocol are the problem.

I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on. I don't want to demonize or shame anyone. I don't even care about the names. I impulsively released the list this way, i guess i could have done it differently, but in general we should just face the truth, no matter how harsh it is sometimes.

By the way, there are enough rumors about who's running Randowhale ;)

EDIT: oh oops you said randomwhale, yeah no idea.

Yes, I understand now and can see the potential flaws, thank you.

"It doesn't even matter if someone only upvotes themself, if their content is good. Maybe some people are mostly content creators and don't spend a lot of time reviewing/reading/curating other content. There's nothing at all wrong with that."

If everybody acted in this manner, do you think it would damage the success, potential and reputation of steem/it?

By the way, there are enough rumors about who's running Randowhale

I haven't cared to pay attention.

well i didnt expect people to get personally offended by a self upvote. But think about this: An upvote is worth something due to the fact that steem is worth something. And that is not because someone writes a blog post. It is because people invest and pay real money to buy steem/SP and that is a risk. As an investor i could therefore argue, why would anyone deserve a $ if they are not willing to take that risk and invest their own money? I believe the network need both parts, people investing and people contributing and building the network and community.
Its not a solution to blame anyone here. A solution to a more satisfying situation would be a flat upvoting system. 50upvotes instead of 10 and it has to be based on the algorythm

I don't find that hypothetical to be plausible, though if it were to happen (lots of lots of high-value content being posted and no one other than the poster bothering to vote on it), I'm honestly not sure whether that would be good or bad. It's actually quite complex to work through how such a situation would arise or persist (considering incentives, investment flows, web traffic, etc.)

If they were useless there wouldn't be dozens of people upvoting, commenting, resteeming and so on.

I know what you're saying that not 100% of the cases would be abuse unconditionally, but you know as well as i do that your example is extremely unlikely. And again, it's just a datadump. People can do whatever they want with it.

I'm not on the wall of shame !
Damn , I'm such a dumbo.
Gonna change it immediatly , thank you. Great post !
Hahaha , lol.
Even re-steemed this post and follow.
Don't forget to follow and upvote my kindness.
Pssst : It's free. :-)

Yepp, basically. Thus post is a good example of the market reacting

It's not about being offended or whatever, this list is just a datadump. The discussion about self-voting is a whole different topic.

If they were useless there wouldn't be dozens of people upvoting, commenting, resteeming and so on.

Heat does not imply light.

Right, but people also say there's no bad publicity, right? ;)

I didn't know self-voting could generate so much SBD!! It looks legit if you upvote your post when you did a good write up which you think is worth that upvote.

However, Steemians who only vote for themselves without giving anything to the community should really think about it.

Steemit is a community effort and the stronger the community, the stronger the platform will be. We all need to work together to make Steemit the next gen platform which everyone want to use.

We should all think about our actions on Steemit and ensure that we are helping the community.

Nice article. Thanks for sharing. Resteemed :)

@smooth If hypothetically i would remove the user names, would you undo your flag (or at least be fine with the content)? (I don't care about the money, it's about the principal and i don't like to see people unhappy)

I just want the data to be published so people can come to any conclusion they want or do further research and expand on it. In the end we should all work together to make this platform come as close to it's full potential as possible. No need to further divide indeed, let's just objectively look at the data and determine what elements of the platform can be improved upon.

You can use https://steemwhales.com to see what authors earned.

@avilsd of course you only upvote yourself 😂😂

We have a saying in our country, it says if you dont like the meat above your teeth then that is where you always teste. If you dont like what you create who is going to like it for you, though if your creativity worth voting definitely you will get people voting for you. And if voting for yourself is a bad thing in steemit then it should be allow. Everyone is entitle to his or her opinion anyway. Voting for only yourself is not a good thing for the steemit community buh voting for what you have create is not bad at all.

My question is, it is bad to vote for yourself? If it is then why did the community allow it?

Because the vast majority of people had no power before June 20th and didn't notice the problem. Now everyone know about it and people finally realize it's a problem. People are mainly against self-voting spam comments.

The data is published, nothing anyone can do about that (even if deleted from the site it is still on the blockchain). I don't even think there is anything wrong with the 'data dump' as you call it. I just dont think this line of inquiry deserves to be rewarded. That is my opinion, we're all entitled to one.

The irony is that your post is really about a form of disagreement about whether some subset of rewards are deserved, which is something I believe should be addressed through voting. I'm acting on that here.

There's no reason to take the downvote personally, nor a need to remove it on account of principle.

Good debate guys!

Cg

Is there somewhere you can easily view your self-vote percentage?

On the one hand, I agree that lists like these are taking things a bit too far. I still found myself browsing through it though and checking a few accounts to see if I was following them and whether I even still liked their stuff. Why? Because if they upvote themselves for such amounts of money, I don't feel like giving them my support when I don't actually care about their topics. It's just one more way to clean up my list to follow less people, so I can actually keep up with the ones I feel deserve more support.

You're saying we could downvote content we find undeserving. I would love to, seriously, but how should I go about doing that? We've all seen the grief people get when they downvote a crap post that's earning way too much money. I feel like I would certainly ruin my own earnings and reputation if I start downvoting undeserving posts. Any author that holds a grudge and a lot of SP would downvote me into oblivion... I don't feel like I am truly, fairly able to curate bad posts, other than ignoring them. Not if I still want to have a shot here myself.

The only content I can (and do) safely downvote is that of newbies who post plagiarized content or copy/past comments...

maybe using the word 'will' made it future tense. HF 19 was happened already and because of which self voting were/are resulting huge drop in payouts. That is what I have observed.

hahaha.. I know..you must have got confused because i have used 'WILL' which turned the total sentence in to future tense. I beg your pardon for my bad english.

Yes indeed, HF19 was happened last month. What I meant to say was, if some one self vote their posts, that post's payout will get reduced.

I agree with your comments. It does bother me when someone repeatedly upvotes their own comments while adding nothing to the conversation. I'm getting a lot of those lately from the dame actors.

When I check out their blogs the post no content of their own and appear to just comment on other's blogs with a generic comment like, "Good info. Thanks" and then they upvote their comment.

I have also been getting a lot of comments saying, "Upvoted and resteemed" but when I check they have done neither and only upvoted their own comment.

Bothers the hell our if me and cheapens the experience on Steemit. I think users like that should be called out

i don't know. Ask the OP for information because I have no idea....

Well you're right that people could solve it with flags (to some extent at least), but currently less than 0.1% of all actions are flags. It must be because of greed (it loses them rewards). It's one of the many problems of the platform :(

Good to see that people like you at least aren't completely about the money, but more about justice.

No it won't.

Congratulations @calamus056!
Your post was mentioned in the hit parade in the following category:

• Comments - Ranked 5 with 183 comments

I have only problem with guys who comment "nice" and give themselves an undeserving upvote

Seems like you enjoyed the message in my post on self-votes. (Subjective Proof of Work: some rational comments on the self-voting trend)

Putting your money where your mouth is.

The best thing is information and thanks to @calamus056 for sharding the data. This is what allows people to make the decisions they need.

You can't stop self voting. Vests should be fungible.

Not surprisingly I got a small upvote from a whale worth $1.6M. Who woulda thunk it? LOL

And I don't mind giving myself a very small additional upvote - that comment took some time to craft and adds value to the platform by providing more opinions to the full community - who can choose to agree or disagree with my position, and then vote as they choose based on their own opinion

It doesn't even matter if someone only upvotes themself, if their content is good. Maybe some people are mostly content creators and don't spend a lot of time reviewing/reading/curating other content. There's nothing at all wrong with that.

This.

People need to stinking start flagging. "Negative-voting" (as refered in the whitepaper). If a self-voted post or comment is making more that you feel appropriate - flag. Don't complain. The entire steem system is founded on the principle that everyone is able to use their vests however they choose to make payouts align with their perception of value.

You can not just "make self-votes not payout" or "self-votes only count for page rank". The social contract behind steem is that VESTS are fungible. Vests are always vests. My vote is worth the same no mater if I vote on content that is good, bad, racist, sexist, pro-steem, or even critical of steem. Changing how vests effect post payouts in a discriminatory way fundamentally changes steem by by altering the fungibility of the underlying asset. This is not like just a 'block size increase' or a simple parameter change, this is a major game theoretical and economic change to the system that has effects much deeper than just self-votes.

Vests should be fungible.

• from my post: https://steemit.com/steem/@kyle.anderson/subjective-proof-of-work-some-rational-comments-on-the-self-voting-trend

I see why you flagged but maybe it is the name that should be changed?

I think someone sharding this type of data is very important for the community. Not everyone is doing the math here.

I think the information is very useful to the community.

Maybe the name "shame" is inappropriate.

Steem blockchain explorers are not fully featured and data like this is helpful.

The information is certainly deserving of some reward.

Maybe the rhetoric requires your comment as a reply.

I was just checking it wasn't common knowledge. Thanks.

Yup, that's one of the main ways of abuse people are noticing lately.

yes it does..because they keep voting other posts during 7 days.. which will make their rewards go down a bit. i have just used an example above..maybe they dont get reduce much, but earning will surely go down..

Rewards for everyone always go do when you vote, even if you don't vote on yourself. That has nothing to do with HF19 though.

I have some great advice to help you out with that, don't be poor - just be rich, easy peasy :)

Wrong, there is something wrong with it because it harms the platform. Also there's no jealousy, self-voting is just bad for the platform, that has nothing to do with how much certain people are "earning".

Yup, very easy ;)

Let's just all decide to be rich from now on! Problem solved!

I updated the disclaimer because of all your feedback, thanks for making me realize people can easily misinterpret things.

Hi. Instead of writing a huge comment here, I turned my response into a post. In it I thanked you for your time and effort in creating this. I mean that sincerely. I hope that this list can be a positive conversation starter rather than a "hit list".