In his article Enter a whales mind

@snowflake explained why it is more worthwhile for him not to vote for the post of Minnows and instead to sell his vote to a bot.

All this gave rise to a rather interesting debate and I read some extraordinarily enlightening comments under this article.

I was a bit alienated by the kind of @snowflake s arguments because I didn't know if he meant it ironically or not. After reading his further comments in the section I felt that he was serious about the system and open for discussion.

What did I notice about the debate and Steemit?

1. This is by and large representing the mindsets of not only whales.
2. Commentators do consider the calculation both to be good and bad.
3. The existing possibility, i. e. what the system provides or what it entices it to do, is also used as an argument to use bots or to leave Steemit as not to support this development.
4. Many find it immoral and are disappointed with the system.

Question: Do we all behave as there is some force from above and we can do nothing about it?

Before I deliver my view on this I must lay out some things for those wo haven't read the article and the comments it produced.

@snowflake chooses the more profitable option, simply because it works first and secondly because it earns him more.

It's interesting for me to start from scratch.

I got in here without funding. Therefore, my approach may be quite different from that of the people who came in here with money. Or those who have worked their way up to became a whale and now hold a quite comfortable situation.

What I don't follow is how to give preference to profit from the comfortable situation and decide against support by means of upvotes.

The whole thing raises the question of greed, which some people have asked themselves. Even if the profit from upvoting is many times smaller than having the bot do it, ...

the end result is still a profit.

It is not the consideration "nothing at all" against "much" but rather: "little" against "much". So like in the first example 2 Steem versus 6 Steem which @snowflake gave.

I think it's a pity that the calculation is quite cool. I ask myself the question, what the user is interested in. Why he finds the error in the system, but still behaves in accordance with it. This question can be asked to all Steemit participants. Because a high number of them seem to behave system-compliant, as far as I can see.

But first of all, I would like to take a look at the position of @snowflake.

He describes his behaviour as logical and comprehensible. If one would completely ignore that his calculation is correct and wonder why the profit margin, which he gets over the renunciation of the bots, one would have to ask the question, starting from which sum and status it would be "enough" for him.

I am surprised that none of the commentators asked this question. Is it too personal? ... I think it probably is. Or is there hardly anyone asking themselves this question? Why not, anyway? When would personal satisfaction be achieved and does it make a difference whether this is in one or two years' time? This is inevitably followed by unpredictability.

Since no one knows whether Steemit will be here in a year or two, people might behave in such a way that they would rather make quick money now.

The whole thing seems to have turned into a kind of race, where - similar to the gold rush - you better hurry up. With the subtle difference that the precious metal is finite and the cryptocurrency is scooped out of nothing. In addition, whales may be presumed to leave Steemit and turn to the new vein of gold as soon as a more lucrative source of funds becomes available to them.

Now you could say, shrugging, that this is the way the game works.
In fact, the game runs because everyone plays it in the same way. Whales like dolphins like little fish. As a whale, claiming that the system is flawed and at the same time speeding up its aggression by performing precisely the cool calculations that make it vulnerable, reduce quality and spread the odds unevenly, the whale is right to those sitting at the gearshift levers of the blockchain.

I think that whales are only people (haha)

... and maybe they want to be taught better. One must never underestimate the fact that the big ones also follow the wind blowing from below. If the majority in a system behaves in conformity and the whale cannot recognize that his form of acting is not conducive but rather obstructive, then he will change his attitude only if others show him that he might be wrong.

This is where the thousands of fish come into play.

They are quite clearly related to the big fish. The widespread behavior is that someone who has brought it to such great power and money knows what he is doing. The second assumption is that, due to the visible success, a reliable guide is in sight. After all, it is often assumed unconsciously that a whale must have made a smart decision at some point, whether he was an early adopter or had enough money on his pockets to invest a relevant amount. Both possibilities are appreciated by the market participants. So far so good.

However, this does not say much about a whale. Nothing about his personality, nothing about his intentions or fears. But of course a whale also has uncertainties, makes wrong decisions, misses good opportunities and is not beaten with the wisdom that one so willingly "accuses" him of and which he - if everyone is talking to him in this way - may be prone to believe himself.

Money speaks. Yes, I suppose that's true.

From the whale perspective, it is always more convenient to argue. Why? You can be sure you have an audience. And this audience tends to agree with you when acting mainly from a needy position. So it really doesn't matter how much money is visibly in my wallet, it depends on whether I think that I feel like an equal partner in a conversation and don't behave subserviently in an argumentation with a whale (or anybody else). Nor arrogant, by the way. So when I read an article and then refer to the whale, it is very important that I know what I want. Is this about the matter? Am I interested in the debate and not shying away from the controversy? Can I recognize the other person's motive and would he give me an answer if I asked him? All these things that resonate subliminal when I enter the discussion play a role.

Most people can't stand it when they are greased with pure greed or subservience.

They are also more reluctant to petitions and begging. If one gets the prevailing impression here on Steemit that it is mostly about a greedy gang, which misses the content and the quality, then a whale will let himself maybe be impressed by it and develop an attitude, which is called "after me the deluge". It should not be forgotten that "management and leadership" here is not something concrete and that the rather desperate search for those who feel responsible and show an interplay with the mere striving for fast money.

Again and again the "little ones" also forget how much power they themselves actually have, if they would stop orienting on bad examples and prostitute themselves. If I read the many comments here, where people behave in a submissive manner and try to compensate for their lack of self-esteem by being uncritical, I feel a bit ...well, I leave that out.

But it becomes understandable when the actor in this way thinks of himself as acting out of despair and having no other choice. Which he has of course, but doesn't shed enough light on. If you superficially believe that what you deliver to content is rather inferior, that will be reflected in less brilliant articles. You stay below your means. You underestimate yourself. The other side is that you overestimate yourself and think that the content you provide is of high quality; misled by the many flattering comments and votes. However, I would like to say that the second variant is more in the hands of the subjective feeling of those who find an article valuable, which in my opinion is rather uninteresting.

Every chicken finds its grain when enough other chickens appreciate the contents.

As long as the many of them are only following the heels of those who already have a lot (without real care), nobody will be very happy with it. When a whale or dolphin gets the impression from his followers that he could write about the last crap and still get a lot of upvotes, he seems human to me to fall for the idea that you have to deal with fools. Not to be impressed by it is certainly not easy. Not to lose faith that there are reasonable and transparent people in the world, just like on Steemit, is somehow a feat.

This is related to the world view you have.

In fact, I believe that it is neither the rational calculations nor the actual financial situation of everyone, whether they give the platform a chance, but rather their own impression of the world and people.

You want to experience other people in a way that makes them behave reasonably, comprehensibly and usefully. You want to be surrounded by people who know how to encourage others. You want to benefit from the wisdom and foresight that someone has to offer and vice versa. But those who are convinced - internally - to live in a world of spinners, yawns and fools will tend to make short-term and selfish decisions that ultimately will not harm others, but will not advance them much. One will turn elsewhere with the hope of encountering more competence and reliability.

Even those who believe that they can make their decisions, since their quite powerful position offers them considerable freedom of choice, transfer their decision bases back to the system or to those who can change it - those who are even more powerful than themselves.

The hierarchy seems to be deeply rooted in each of us.

The responsibility still seems to be a little higher up the ladder.
Actually it is not, there is always more than one way.

Snowflake writes:
"Why are new authors being ignored? Why is the retention rate so poor? Because the curation system is broken."

Even if this is true, I still believe that he could ignore this fact and, under the given circumstances, concentrate on how many good authors he can and wants to help. No one needs to feel responsible for the thousands if he is not able to pull a few and support them to the best of his ability to achieve what is important to him. However, there is no need to exclude proposals and good ideas, which are a win-win situation for all those involved and at the same time absorb what is considered counterproductive. @snowflake submitted his proposal and opened the field for debate - which is good!

Now one could ask whether a whale can allow himself to be pessimistic. It sounds, like many people, scattering a critic attitude into the debate and hoping that they might find answers and arguments to dissolve this attitude. Which I find good & useful, we exactly should do that.

@snowflake offers a solution:

"The solution is to let authors decide how much curation reward they want to allocate to curators."

I have no idea if this is a good solution and would eliminate the problem. This debate on solutions and numerous thoughts and objections have been made on the blog and elsewhere - I appreciate and learned a lot from that. Rather, I am here interested in understanding the psychology behind the whole and offering an analysis.

For me personally it is the case that I know about how much income I would have to generate through Steemit, so that everything is in dry cloths. I will make this transparent: I would have to make about 2.5 times as much turnover as is currently the case in order to not only secure my existence as a freelancer but also to include other life opportunities. It would have to be a big leap forward in order to be able to afford the higher tax and social security level.

The question for me is therefore:
Is it possible to achieve exactly this sum on a continuous basis here at Steemit?
If I know how much I need, it's already good, because then I know what I want. From my current position it is going to be a long way to achieve what I reckoned. Probably the first year or so would totally be my investment of time & energy.

I want to make it clear that my investment in time and energy is as valuable as a whale's dollar investment. Without me there would be no Steemit, and without the whale there would be no Steemit.

If I were to break the whole thing down to a hundred people here,

it would be obvious that a village which does engage in significant productive and quality activities and which thereby attracts financiers will thrive. Of course, you can keep up the farce artificially and distort and mislead the development by various parameters. As a result, some make a good cut but those who have thrown their pearls in front of the sows keep a long nose.

There are probably as many reasons as there are people in terms of "needs & wants".

If a whale is not someone who is drawn to make a name for himself as an author and who publishes articles on his initiative which he wants his readership to deal with, he has clearly different interests. Perhaps to support and advance other good content suppliers.
Maybe just letting his money work for him, maybe both.

It would be good if you could see this in the external effect. A kind of "non-performing income"; in other words, getting as high an output as possible with as little effort as possible: sure, that's one reason.

That brings us to the point of morality and work ethics.

I am sure that Western and Christian civilizations have a problem with money being the sole purpose of generating more money. Also, whether one wants to or not, the visibility of wealth requires that someone who has a disproportionately high amount of money should do something with it, something that others want to say is also of some use to the general public.

What's the point of that? Which man is happy to finance his amusement from his money alone? At some point, a wealthy man has the need to use his means to try something useful. All people actually want to get the feeling that their contribution to life in a community of people should be seen as valuable.

Why else do they want to invest in projects, move matter in the real world, research and invent something? If existence is assured and you don't have to worry about food and rent, then everything that comes along is due to the need to give meaning to life. Exceptions confirm the rule. Of course, there are also among the upper classes of fear and ambition devoured, where the end justifies the means.

My view of people is that everyone would like to be encouraged to find their potential and to pursue what they do well and what they feel comfortable with - and give the same to others.

You can therefore always advise against something when the inner voice warns, distorts, contradicts, doubts and hesitates.

When people act against their own beliefs about ethics. In order to check whether their judgment is correct, people choose the way that they bring others along with them to know that their judgment is confirmed or questioned. Depending on whether the inner voice gets clarity, the questioner is satisfied with it and makes a decision. If you find that doubts, distortions and inconsistencies in a rain fall again in the course of time, the whole thing can start all over again and you return to the space of problem solving. Until you live with your own decision over a longer period of time and experience it as ethically sound.

Of course, we cannot deny either that our present form of existence is interspersed with competition, envy and greed. This can only be changed if you decide for yourself not to participate. No matter what conditions and prerequisites a system presents to us. To the extent that there is any room for manoeuvre in a restrictive or unfair system, it is always better to choose to make full use of this room for manoeuvre than to concentrate on the fact that the limits cannot be bent. They will be changed if more people gain self-esteem (haha, now I know where the term comes from).

Since we can never be sure that those who can make a difference will do so, it is of great importance to make the world out there clear and visible what role model we want to set ourselves.

We can be sure and assume that we are being observed by everyone else and being consciously and unconsciously evaluated.

Those who all agree that they will set the course for this platform should not let their position rise to their heads and the others, who follow the publicly visible (or quietly interpretable) models, should remember a little more self-confidence and less petitioner's moods.

Ethical aspects play a role in almost all questions of human existence,

unfortunately we often forget this and sacrifice ethics for the benefit of lesser things.

I would naturally want to get a feeling for how the participants tick and what the predominant driving force is. If I realize that people are using a system where it's a question of rip-off and in and out money decisions, and I see Minnow's like dolphins and whales serving the resonance field in equal measure, I would have - perhaps - the impression that it would be a futile effort to try to convince the masses of something else, because apparently everyone is behaving in agreement.

I would love to be proven better. And I will, that I am sure of.

I've been quietly looking at Steemit over the last few days,

the trending page, the voting behavior, the content, the comments. I have to say that I am irritated by the way people behave here. What do people think, what will those who are on the one hand investors and those who as users expect added value from a social media platform do?

Facebook, for example, lived for a long time from the quality and the very diverse and well-founded content of the recommended pages. If I judge my feed on facebook of the almost ten years I have had an account there, I have been there because I was recommended content which, apart from the mainstream hustle and bustle, offered excellent articles, films or contributions and ideas. That was nutrition which I gave back as I received.

But when I'm on a platform, whose main site is mainly full of cheap nonsense and I have to discover the icing on the cake among the contents under "farther run" or they are ridiculously little voted on, I start to doubt the minds of the people.

Ultimately, investors and users alike want to get and offer something of value.

If the majority of the participants do not understand this or are too impatient, I will not give Steemit a long-term chance. After all, no internet platform can live solely on the fact that here only one clever method after another is conceived, to boost, to invent bots, to write out stupid competitions or to sell votes. If all this degenerates into a completely meaningless hunt, which is becoming more and more insubstantial, only a rather boring and silly desert remains. De-centralization is a very attractive idea, people are not used to it - strong role models who raise their voices are still needed. If those with heart and mind are missing, not only the head stinks, but also the rest of the fish.

As @twinner rightly said in a comment under his article where he gave a look back at steemfest and arguments to be considered, the bill has to be paid at some point. If I had sat a few hundred thousand loose: I would have doubted my business sense, if the development of a platform like this did not suggest that one actually creates something very unique, which really inspires people and not only promotes silly greed. Of course, ... you can have success without quality. Well...

In any case, my roaming through Steemit has taught me that, as far as I have allowed myself to be enraptured by an article, which I did not really find meaningful, to give my vote, I will refrain from doing so in the future. Except for the Loyalty Votes, which no one wants to and will not deny themselves. Someone I want to draw attention to will get a vote or comment from me if I have something to say about it. That is how I have handled it since the beginning and I will continue to do so.

My observations are of course my subjective view.

The approach to the subject may have been chosen by snowflake as a provocative stylistic device. That was the intention, I guess. Producing consternation is not always easy. This is what @snowflake has achieved and has set the debate in motion. I have continued it here in my own way. In any case, I would like to say that I think that more of the whales/dolphins should be able to make themselves transparent, but of course every Minnow can do just as well.

It will have an effect. Precisely on those who will read your article. Whether only one or ten of them will do something good for themselves, you don't know. But surely it is also worth something for this one person.

Last words: If I would be a whale I would make as much minnows happy as possible. I would choose them carefully and the end result would be that it is much more worth to support and let other people be successful than 3 times of getting back my votes. In my scenario everybody wins. For as long as I am a mermaid I hope to make you happy & successful with my content.

Thank you for reading.

---

^{Picture source:}

^{By Mehgan Heaney-Grier (Mehgan Heaney-Grier) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons}

^{Snowflakes: https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=snowflake&license=shareCommercially#f=true}

^{Fractal: https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=blue+fractal&license=shareCommercially}

^{Eve with the book of knowledge: pixabay}

---

If this has met your taste and interest,

follow me: @erh.germany

Also you might want to read my other articles. They vary from science to entertainment & art.

---