RE: HF20 might be the reason steem got dumped
My understanding of the change to self-voting with HF20 was that the author would no longer get 100% of the curation reward of his upvote when upvoting immediately. Instead, that portion would be returned to the reward pool. This is a relatively modest change that affects some of the curation rewards for an upvote, not the value of the upvote itself and certainly won't prevent self upvoting and rewarding ones self. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
From https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/steem-velocity-hardfork-hardfork-20
According to the current blockchain rules, if authors vote for themselves immediately, they get their author rewards, 100% of the curation rewards from their vote, and a portion of the curation rewards coming from everyone who votes for the post after them. Any other curator voting at the same time as the author would get 0% of the curation rewards. This gives the author an unfair advantage over other curators, because the author can earn additional curation rewards through self-voting.In order to eliminate this advantage, the portion of curation rewards that is not given to the curators due to the early voting penalty will be returned to the rewards pool instead of being awarded to the author, thereby increasing the overall percentage of rewards paid to curators. This will better serve the original mission of the curation rewards budget: to ensure that the Steem blockchain distributes rewards to the most valuable content.
It is a VERY important change. They don't only get 100% of their upvote, they also get more from the curation of others' upvotes on their posts, including those coming from promotion services like bid bots.
Oh, mostly importantly - their self-upvote will only count towards self-promotion. They will get neither author or curation rewards. Sure, a $0.001 upvote doesn't make that much difference. Because this doesn't affect just dolphins but also guys like haejin, however, this turns steemit into a whole different world.
The reward pool comes from how much steemians have invested in the steem blockchain. If some other person can join, abuse exploits and run away with other people's money without any penalties, you're essentially forced to watch as someone else takes care of a big share of your investment for you regardless of what you think of it.
But as I understand it, a self-upvote will still reward your post in the same manner as an upvote for someone else. And in fact, you will still even get curation rewards for your self-upvote. You just no longer have the advantage of reaping 100% of the curation reward from your own vote when you do it instantly. In other words, only the portion of the curation rewards not awarded to curators because of early voting penalties is affected. I suppose this can be significant it just seems like it would be a relatively small part of the gains one gets from self-upvoting.
I've turned this answer into a new post.
I think this can be the reason but by the way we can see the bear market in all alts. I think for the future the most dangerous thing for steem is bid bots because they challenge the philosophy of a fair ( i mean a dicentralized ) platform everyone can receive what he or she deserves.
If you 're a good writer , the majority have to determine the value of your job , not greedy robots . We must not forget that there is competition in this arena and it is likely that steem will have serious competitors in the future .
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. While this might not be the case for all of the upvoting services, greedy robots are ran by greedy people. In case their services have to stop, they are likely to just upvote their delegators or find different ways of being selfish.
There are also ways of performing this service in a more "righteous" way, as clearly demonstrated by @ecotrain (although I'm not saying it's perfect), so you just can't blame the type of business in itself.
You mentioned the main reason : greedy people . But if the system is fair , these people should not be able to manipulate the system . steem pays it's users millions of dollars evey year and by manipulation that money will not properly be distributed and it's unfair . We should be aware that people don't directly give money to each other .this is not a donation of money this a distribution of money and people are just part of this process. this is in fact the system(users are part of it) . And it 's very important that the system is fair . I suggest , for instance , that any post that wins the highest number of votes will give the more steem even if the voters dont have many steempower.yes they dont have a good steempower mabey because they are not rich but is this mean that they dont have reason? what tool should we use to find the real value of a content? With The power of money ? Or the power of reasons( real majority). (Of course mabey there is a person who is rich and smart ).
Fairness is not logical. Fairness is human, it's a moral value. Systems are logical, amoral, and this is particularly important if it's designed to be decentralized. Therefore, I wholeheartedly disagree with you, the system does not have to be fair, just well designed.
Also I'm under the impression you are not aware of where that "money" comes from, please correct me if I'm wrong.