You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Five ways your self-vote can earn 100% or more under HF20.
Clearly the goal isn't to cap self-voters, but to discourage self-voting. You're confusing the patient with the affliction.
In fact what you're talking about is better defined as ROI, not self voting. Self voting is just a tool in the belt of someone trying to maximize their ROI.
Why? I see no reason to care about self-voting the particular technical behavior. The idea is to reduce the ROI of voting selfishly in order to drive more outgoing votes.
Not necessarily a goal I agree with, in the first place. But if people are going to pursue it I wish they'd do it better.
Yet you spent half of your post talking about indirect methods of ROI, which is what I was commenting on.
What is your view of the purpose of rewards on Steem?
Explicitly trading a vote for a vote is still self-voting in all but the technical sense.
Like any PoS system, they exist in order to encourage people to stake, commit to holding the coin, and thereby maintain its value.
Then on top of that is built this somewhat-compelling social game of voting and posting, which has all sorts of weird obfuscations of what's actually going on. Stake rewards are highly-restricted in terms of what can be done with them, in hopes of supporting the game, but it doesn't really work all that well. People who are primarily interested in the stake rewards have many methods to end-run around the game with varying effectiveness.
The people who are interested in playing the game get pissed off at the people who just want their stake rewards, because they're under the impression that everyone here should be playing the game under the rules they've made up for themselves, and try to redesign the system to push more people into playing the game which they envision.
This very likely will not work because if those people were interested in playing they already would be. It's pretty fun.
That's a nice summary, I like the way you've put it. Usually people overcomplicate it by talking about investors vs authors / curators, but your expression is neater.
Indeed, and it's debatable whether this part of HF20 under discussion will support the game further. You seem think it won't (or won't enough). I'm leaning towards that it will. It's also not clear that you care, at a guess you look like you've got a foot in end-running and foot in the game.
I'm still in favor of the idea that votes for the same accounts within a set time period should incur a penalty, which would perhaps best practically be implemented as another regenerating factor like VP. It would be like a VP per account you voting for. This was proposed by a friend of mine @rycharde about a year ago. It would support the game very much and push those interested only in stake rewards further into the territory of needing many multiple accounts, making it more expensive (driving out many opportunists) and increasing the possibility of dealing with the determined via sentinel bots.
The problem is that it is itself probably quite expensive for blockchain nodes in implementation. I think there are also "political" issues to overcome in terms of consensus (i.e. convincing people it's a good idea) but I continue to advocate for it.
I like to think of it as seeing the value of both sides. I'm not convinced that systematic decisions forcing people to play the game are viable in any sense. I think the game has a fair number of players who play it voluntarily, for them it's reasonably rewarding, and we should focus on supporting and increasing that number rather than trying to get more begrudging players.
A system in which authors are trying to discourage certain upvotes almost certainly makes the game less fun, when we should be trying to make it more fun.