Examining Honey from a Different Perspective - Steemit Sock Puppetry Continues

in #steemit8 years ago (edited)

There have been some concerns in recent weeks over the issue of sock puppets and suspicious accounts that have been able to funnel thousands of SBD from the rewards pool.

In a recent post from @bacchist, he laid out a clear link from a whale account – @kushed – that had two other accounts linked to it. One of these accounts – @lakers – had created two additional accounts that have found their way onto the daily trending pages over the past several weeks, instantly achieving large payouts from their very first posts (reminiscent of the account, @msgivings). It was admitted by @kushed in Rocket Chat that he indeed created the two accounts in question. He had claimed that these accounts were created for two anonymous bloggers from The Huffington Post that he had brought to Steemit in order to increase both post quantity and quality.

These two accounts are @honeyscribe and @lifeisawesome.

According to @bacchist’s post, the claim for at least one of those accounts – @lifeisawesome – appeared to be dubious, as the poster admitted in a comment that he had never written “on a worldwide platform like [Steemit.]” As @bacchist correctly pointed out, The Huffington Post has a wider reach and is more well-known than Steemit, and any blogger would certainly know this.

We’ll come back to that at a later time. For now, we can examine some interesting points about the other account: @honeyscribe.

The first days of @honeyscribe

After this account was created by @lakers and before it engaged in any posting of its own, it coincidentally upvoted a post by @lifeisawesome. We may be able to draw conclusions about this, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with upvoting another account, regardless of how coincidental it is. So we’ll skip the coincidences and get right into harder evidence.

Let’s start with the votes for @honeyscribe’s very first blog post.

honey_votes_post1.500f6f.jpg

This list of votes seems perfectly normal at first glance. However, we see that name again – @lakers. That’s not necessarily anything unusual, as @lakers (who is also the whale, @kushed) is the person who created this account and claims that he knows this blogger and actually brought them to the platform. But what are the other names of the first voters on this post? If you noticed, the first upvote came from the account @america. It’s a great thing, isn’t it? Getting early support, especially from America? We should all be so lucky, right?

So, let’s take a look at this account.

america_curation_1.5bab23.jpg

Well, that’s strange. Of all the curating that could be done on Steemit, this account has only curated @honeyscribe and @lifeisawesome. Not only that, but this account was the very first upvote on the very first post from @honeyscribe. So, we have ourselves another strange coincidence – but what of it? Well, that was only the first vote. Let’s look at the second account, @angelika.

angelika_curation_1.59ab94.jpg

Another strange coincidence? The second account to vote for @honeyscribe was also an account that has only ever curated @honeyscribe and @lifeisawesome. Now this might pique one’s interest. What are the other accounts on this list? Let’s look at the next one, @davo.

davo_curation_1.59bc30.jpg

Something here just doesn’t seem right, does it? The first three accounts voting for this new author have only ever curated this author and another account directly linked to/associated with it. Going down the list, @guinness, @japan, @kiso, @lakers, and @wd40 all show identical or similar curation – only for the same two accounts. That’s eight in total, all upvoting the same two accounts. We know @lakers belongs to @kushed and we know that he created the two accounts being upvoted. All of these eight accounts were mined in April and May, just as this account was:

salus_curation_1.5e66b9.jpg

If you recall from @bacchist’s post, @salus is linked directly to @kushed through a wallet transfer.

kushed_salus_transfers3b861.jpg

You can see all of these accounts repeat their upvote on the second post from @honeyscribe – this time immediately followed by @sarkis and @kushed himself. (The @sarkis account is just like the others already mentioned.)

honey_votes_post2.5f907d.jpg

So, we have ten accounts, plus @kushed – all mined in April and May, and all voting for the same two accounts. One of these ten accounts has direct transfers to @kushed and one of them was admitted by @kushed as being one of his that created the @honeyscribe and @lifeisawesome accounts. Given this information, it is clear that all of these accounts are very likely owned by @kushed. We know that @honeyscribe is one of his creations, so let’s explore some peculiar activity with this account and another that behaves almost exactly like it.

Are @honeyscribe and @perspective the same person?

This is a great question – and I believe we have definitive proof that the posts are indeed originating from the same source.

When @perspective burst onto the Steemit scene, the very first account that they followed was @lifeisawesome – and then honeyscribe not long after. What are the odds that a new, suspicious account would begin following other previously identified suspicious accounts?

perspective_followedf0b3b.jpg

OK – so maybe that’s not very compelling evidence. But what if I told you that the very first person to upvote @perspective’s very first post was @honeyscribe? Would that be more convincing?

perspective_votes_post1.50fc00.jpg

Who was the first person to comment on the post? Again – it was @honeyscribe.

perspective_fake_interest2.5eb68f.jpg

On the third post by @perspective, we have both @lifeisawesome and @honeyscribe upvoting within the first four curators.

perspective_votes_post3.1.5d3de9.jpg

Now I’m certainly no expert on trend analysis, but I’d say that a pattern is certainly developing between these accounts. Nevertheless, let’s move on from curating and commenting for now. Let’s look at some really hard evidence.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Beginning on September 11, 2016, both the @honeyscribe and @perspective accounts were posting once every day. On that date, the posts from each user contained images hosted by imgsafe.org. Also on that date, both accounts posted an image of a piece of paper with the Steemit logo – as what seems to be an attempt to “prove” that there was indeed a real woman posting on these accounts. These are the two images:

honey_paper_9-11-1665a1d.jpg

perspective_paper_9-11-16cbad1.jpg

Just a coincidence? Perhaps – but there’s much more to it. On September 11th, 12th, and 13th, the images from each of these posts were all hosted by imgsafe.org.

honey_imgsafe1.536632.jpg

perspective_imgsafe1.5a2f65.jpg

Then – strangely – both accounts changed image hosting on September 14th. Well, there’s nothing wrong with that, right? People change hosting accounts. It’s not a big deal, is it? Well, this could just be another coincidence – except for the fact that both of these accounts switched to the exact same hosting site, and a rather obscure one at that: anonmgur.com.

honey_imagehost5.52cde9.jpg

perspective_imagehost5.52f58e.jpg

For three days in a row, both @honeyscribe and @perspective hosted their images on anonmgur.com, before again switching back to imgsafe.org on the very same day – September 17th.

honey_imagehost2.500808.jpg

perspective_imagehost2.590872.jpg

If that isn’t an obvious indication that the same person is controlling both accounts, then perhaps we can find something else that’s peculiar amongst them. Say, perhaps – a formatting issue?

perspective_honey_format_mistakes42b75.jpg

Alright – so one coincidental formatting issue that occurs on the same day doesn’t prove anything. But what if there were two, by the same two accounts…in consecutive days?

perspective_honey_format_mistakes_2b90ad.jpg

So, we have two accounts with questionable origins posting similar images on the same day, changing image hosting accounts on the same days to the same hosting sites – twice, and also having the exact same formatting issues in two consecutive days. We also have a link between a third account (@lifeisawesome) that interacts with both users – an account that was created by the same person (@lakers/@kushed) who admittedly created one of the other accounts in question here (@honeyscribe).

If you’re not yet convinced that these two accounts are being controlled by the same person, then I’d say that you’re really not paying attention. Still, there are other similarities and coincidences between these accounts. Observe how these two accounts attribute their images, for example:

honey_source_pixabay1.50bd32.jpg

perspective_source_pixabay1.5918bf.jpg

Or the choice of images used (which also happens to be popular among many of these socks in general). One of these sets of images is from today.

honey_perspective_wordimages18cdaf.jpg

honey_perspective_wordimages1.57246b.jpg

Is Steemit being defrauded?

Reading through recent posts by @honeyscribe and @perspective, it is clear to me that they are being written by the same person. The layouts are very much the same and their writing style and topics of their posts are very similar as well. A lot of the posts are about relationships, fear, and hiding from their past or from certain parts of society. Even the categories selected are pretty much the same – relationships, psychology, and life.

Given all of the information and links between these accounts, it’s undeniable that @honeyscribe and @perspective are the same person. But the question remains: Is there anything wrong with that?

One answer would be: Not necessarily. However, the problem isn’t that they’re posting under different accounts. The problem is that they are fabricating interest in these accounts by pretending to be different people.

honey_fake_interest1.5f7315.jpg

perspective_fake_interest1.59a92f.jpg

Either this person has some serious schizophrenic issues, or they are deliberately attempting to deceive readers. What could the purpose for the deception be? Possibly to trick readers into believing their lie so that they can manufacture interest in their posts – either to hide the fact that there is generally no interest in these posts while they are being upvoted by whales, or as an attempt to bring legitimacy to the @perspective account that is still relatively new. It could be the same thing that occurred with the @msgivings account when @honeyscribe was still fairly new to the scene.

sock_interactions_287d6f.jpg

Now, some people will call all of this a “witch hunt.” But can we really deny what is actually happening and claim that the evidence presented here isn’t real? As we can see, there is a pattern developing between multiple accounts – all with questionable origins and all of these suspicious accounts are being upvoted by the same whales. We already know of one that is deeply involved in the creation and curation of these accounts. In future postings, we will explore additional sock puppet accounts, additional peculiar behavior of and interactions between the accounts and the whales supporting them, and the same whale collusion involved in upvoting their posts.

To give you an idea of how bad this is – in the past month, just the identified accounts have already pulled over $75,000 SBD in payouts from the rewards pool. This rabbit hole runs very deep and these issues need to be corrected if we want a healthy Steemit platform. Without trust – especially in the “investors” – it’ll be extremely hard to succeed.

I fully expect this post to be flagged, despite the fact that there isn't anything wrong with the facts presented in it. I understand that my reputation is on the line - however, my purpose is to help clean up the image and credibility of Steemit. If I'm to be flagged into oblivion for that, then I'll take that hit. I hope others will support this and not support those responsible for the continual deceit.

Please Re-Steem this post.

Follow me: @ats-david

Sort:  

It may not be appropriate for @steemed @itsascam @steemroller and @kushed to downvote this post. Since they gave many upvotes to aforementioned accounts.

lifeisawesome

VoterContributed Payout(SBD)Upvote Count
kushed1373128.0
steemed320622.0
itsascam309222.0
steemroller36422.0
Total8035194



honeyscribe

VoterContributed Payout(SBD)Upvote Count
kushed89777.0
steemed209218.0
itsascam215719.0
steemroller25419.0
Total5400133

Their downvotes should not be surprising, considering their level of involvement with these accounts. This will only add to the suspicion.

It should also be noted that @steemed, @itsascam, and @steemroller are the same person.

I am providing voting pattern data by requests. Please see here:

https://steemit.com/stats/@clayop/access-to-voting-pattern-data-by-request

People should be able to vote how they want. I do see value in posts like this. They can let those of us that are on here know the situation. I already do not vote on things unless I like them. A lot of the things I vote on do not make it to the trending page. I don't see the value in thousands of dollars per post for @msgivings @mrron @honeyscribe and the others writing short pieces with little depth. Yet I am not the one voting with a powerful account... It is a way to game the system. There is no way to stop gaming the system, but we can keep each of us informed so we don't add to the game...

Exactly right. It's about having the right information so that we can all make informed decisions about who we want to support. This is the exact opposite of someone flagging your post so that it isn't as visible, simply because they don't like that you're providing that information.

And yes - there is plenty of value in information gathering and presentation.

Frankly, I think if it get's down voted anymore it should be put on twitter or facebook.

@dantheman just gave it an up vote. :) That's a nice thing. I am sure he can appreciate the effort that @ats-david put into this. The activities of these people ARE their right to vote. Yet it does give a negative impression on steemit. So making the rest of us aware so we can start voting accordingly, and deciding whom we do and do not for witnesses be a more informed thing is a nice thing. Keep up the good work, is all I can say. Keep it informative, but POSITIVE and we're all golden!

I am very impressed and I feel a sense of.... This actually might work! Due to @ned and @dantheman choosing to vote this up. I know it must have been hard, but in the end they are only protecting their own investments. They have more to lose than any of us. I feel proud.

I don't think it was hard for them at all. I think they're annoyed and are happy to see that someone has gone to the trouble they don't have time to do.

"Size doesn't matter", she said.

Ok <--- :)

EDIT: Supposed to be an example of a small response. :)

Just trying to bring a little laughter to all of this seriousness.

Impressive research.

If this is a free market, there is nothing wrong with a person creating two or more accounts, not revealing his or her identity, or voting early on content made by someone else for whatever reason. There's also nothing wrong with pointing out things you see happening.

More than one account is not the problem. https://steemit.com/whales/@throw-away911/a-funny-interview-with-steemed
The problem is taken the rewards from the pool all for themselves and their meat puppets.

Steemit is only a scam if the whales make it a scam.

However, who can become a whale? Anyone with enough money to invest in steem / steem power can. That skews the premise Steemit was built on, to create a platform where individual contributors are incentivized to create + curate content valuable to others.

I understand @dan & @ned created Steemit in such a way to preserve and grow their personal investments, and part of that is coding "the rules" to not only insure that, but also to insure the platform itself is sustainable. However, other whales have invested who found a way to game the platform, taking advantage of the rules @dan & @ned put in place to protect and sustain the platform.

I see no inherent problem with multiple accounts operated by one real identity and anonymity of accounts. The root causes of the gaming arise from bots and the fact that anyone regardless of their intentions can buy large amounts of influence. Would it possibly help to level the playing field to limit the power of bots inversely proportional to the amount of SP the bot operates with? If you're a whale why do you need bots to further bolster your influence?

Another aspect that complicates our view of activities on Steemit is the nature of these "bots". What is a bot? It is simply a set of rules (i.e. a computer program or code) that carry out a predefined set of operations. Those operations can be very simple or very complex. It's conceivable that highly complex bot programs based on AI could be used to take advantage of loopholes in the steemit platform to "game" the system. It would be interesting if there were a way to identify the actions performed by bots and surface that info to the steemit community. Should bots have a reputation score also?

I'll readily admit I don't understand the nuances of this platform, not only from a social perspective but also details in the coding. Having been involved with the BitShares platform long before Graphene existed my knowledge is far above average on the technical underpinnings of Steemit, but I wouldn't hazard to quantify it with on a 1 to 10 spectrum, it's just too complex a beast.

From the earliest discussions about steemit I've always had reservations about the ways in which it might be gamed, either through "voting guilds" or other means. I don't think guilds are necessarily bad, if they are nothing but subsets of the community that vote with a collective agenda. I see the biggest threat being what I opened this comment with, the fact money can buy a lot of influence irrespective of concern for the platform or the community. It's the same potentially corrupting influence that money has on politics - a tendency towards centralization of power.

Perhaps in the final analysis we'll discover that any type of PoS system, be it capitalism or PoS/DPoS blockchains, will as free or rigid as the strongest influence in it allows. Since @dan & @ned aren't the wealthiest people on the planet, their influence can be super ceded.

This post was indeed very brave, and I commend you @ats-david for your willingness to post it and the thorough analysis it contains.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with that. But the problem here is the deception, combined with the shady origins and the collusive voting. There are more than these accounts involved.

True, but all of that is not in any way prohibited by Steemit, so what are we going to do about it? I agree with @smooth that

The solution is more competition among content.

The problem is that this pattern of behavior will necessarily limit the range, quantity, and quality of content. Whales colluding to vote on each other do so at the expense of new authors being rewarded for their content. Without incentive for the creation of new and diverse content, it will not simply appear of its own volition and continue to be produced without recognition.

This behavior is anti-competitive.

I think it's disingenuous to fall back on tropes like "free market" and "competition" when this behavior is, in essence, no different than a government granted monopoly. This is the antithesis of the concepts that are being used to defend it.

I see what you're saying, and I agree with this:

Without incentive for the creation of new and diverse content, it will not simply appear of its own volition and continue to be produced without recognition.

I've seen new users (one of whom was my mom!) come to the site and become discouraged by the lack of attention paid to some excellent and completely unique posts. I respect @ats-david's decision to disseminate the information.

However, I don't mean something figurative or metaphorical when I say "free market." I mean that we are all free to NOT support things we don't like, to make deals or alliances with other users, and to build on Steem in ways that create more legit reasons to buy and sell the tokens. If I were a brand new user of Steemit right now, I'd market and advertise my posts and go to @robinhoodwhale, @coinbitgold and her academic post initiative, or someone who promotes and features new content.

If this is really as flawed as a government monopoly, maybe it's time to make big changes! It's always been centralized, so what do you expect? The whales are mainly the initial investors.

@edgeland thanks for the mention. Appreciate it for the recognition. As much as i would like to agree with you, the journey to promote new science and academia writers has been difficult because I do not have much of an influence at steemit. And upvotes on my content come from whales who maybe think i have good content or who think it is good to promote good science writers. And i am grateful to them for for believing in me.

I have a few comments on this post:

Even if evil whales are ousted, can we be confident that there will be no new evil whales in this anarchic system in the future ?
Let's admit that in this current system, the voting algorithm is easy to game for whales.
I respect @ats-david for posting this and giving this information to all users. But on the other hand, is it really good to flash "dirty laundry" publicly? IMO, it is not good for the steem prices and investors confidence......

@bacchist you know I think a lot of you. So this is going back in the way back machine. Considering the debate you and I had relating to anarchism almost two months ago now, this response of yours has me grinning from ear to ear. Good work on investigating this by the way. I've been following your progress too and spreading the word.

Is this debate about anarchism accessible on Steemit? Lol.

I appreciate this response from you, given our philosophical differences. I don't necessarily hold "free market principles" and competition to be ideas which I'd prefer to build a society around. But at the same time, I do think that whatever principles a given society is based upon should be applied uniformly, and not arbitrarily enforced depending on how it effects those with the most power.

Yes, thank you. Your link brought me here.

It absolutely is very different from a government granted monopoly in that no legal authority backed by force is protecting it.

Understood.... Hypocrisy does suck... So if a certain system is espoused yet it is not followed then you would feel justified in speaking up. So would I. We differ in the capitalism vs communism aspect of things, but that does not mean I do not respect you. Your mind and efforts are very telling. Keep it up. You have my support, and the support of others.

People can use this information however they wish. I am simply disseminating it. That is also not prohibited. In fact, information is extremely valuable - and vital.

EDIT: "Competition among content" won't resolve any of this. When there is collusive voting among whales, it doesn't matter if there is other better content. They can simply continue upvoting their own socks because they have the influence to pay themselves a large portion of the daily rewards. If there are not other influential voters who are downvoting to offset that, then it can't be prevented. In order to neutralize bad actors, there must be an equal opposing force willing to act. Ignoring it doesn't work.

Once it is exposed, I don't expect it to be policed per say, but I can choose to mute these accounts so I never accidentally vote for them.

Thank you by the way, for taking the risk to post this. I agree it shouldn't be policed, but it should be outed, so the community can decide if they wish to support it or not.

This was a brave post!

Your vote wont make a difference. As long as the whales keep voting for each other there will be nothing left in the budget for your post.
https://steemit.com/whales/@throw-away911/a-funny-interview-with-steemed

This is what investigative journalism used to look like before it was strangled by politics in the real world. Thank goodness for the transparency of the block chain! @ats-david, I salute you.

This article makes a reasoned argument and presents facts. It's good journalism.

Thank you. I appreciate that. This wasn't a solo effort and there's still more that needs to be addressed. As I said - this rabbit hole is fairly deep.

Who helped you? @bacchist? Or someone off-scene? Are you going to be doing some more digging?

More digging? You know it!

But really, most of the digging has been done. Now the information just needs to be presented.

This type of reporting should be encouraged. From Bill Moyers: "One of my mentors told me that “News is what people want to keep hidden, everything else is publicity.”

In the same speech, he goes on to say:

"What happens when our elections are insider-driven charades conducted for profit by professional operatives whose spending on advertising mainly enriches themselves and the cable and television stations in cahoots with them? We know the answer, we know that a shortage of substantial reporting means corruption remains hidden, candidates we know little about and even less about who is funding them and what policy outcomes they are buying. It also means even more terrifying possibilities. As Tom Stoppard writes in his play Night and Day, “People do terrible things to each other, but it’s worse in the places where everybody is kept in the dark.”

Transparency can be maintained on the block chain. Why even try to turn it into the kind of place where everyone is kept in the dark? Bill Moyers's ultimate argument is that investigative journalists need to be paid higher wages. We should be rewarding good journalism on Steemit.

slow clap

THIS is some good investigative skills man.

Wow. We have a sock puppet infestation here. -_-

My Respect @ats-david Great investigation! Upvoted & Read all the way through. Keep it up!

I have read the other comments and how some are not concerned about this behavior, but this does make the site seem a bit shady and it is difficult to decide to invest money into what feels like a fixed system. Another important issue here is... The bots are multiplying, the human's are not. Low User adoption creates a short-term investment, where people are "Milking the Steem". I completely understand not policing these issues, but as a non-whale, real user, who actually has money to invest, I guess I just don't think this is what is in SteemIt's best interest.

Out of the 3k-ish users a day, how many of them are bots? There is no way to answer.

@whatsup I think you have hit on the big problem there.

Perception is important and right now we need to retain users.

Although many of us accept that these kind of techniques to game the system are a part of life new users may not see it the same way.

We need more users and at least some mainstream acceptance to survive. Right now I estimate the vast majority of people here are from the crypto world and we tend to have similar views that have come very much from our involvement in the crypto community.

The vast majority of Joe and Jane Public likely don't think the same way and we will have difficulty attracting them to anything that looks remotely unfair to them.

I'm not sure what can be done though.

Even if the community decides someone is deliberately acting against the best interests of the platform there is little that can be done if they are sufficiently powerful.

Everyone knows it is happening, but this is the first time someone put that much effort into investigating it, so it can't be hidden. When the whales know their are "Whistle-Blowers" they will have to police each other as Dan and Ned have done here or they are going to watch the rest of their investment slip away. They have so much more to win or lose it is in their best interest to start to challenge each other to treat this site like they want it to have creditability, gain value and last. We can't shouldn't police it, just allow people to report on it. If it doesn't start to get addressed, it should get reported on outside of SteemIt on Crypto sites and other places. However, I have seen tonight if the correct amount of research and evidence is presented Ned and Dan will step in. I have regained a huge amount of trust that I had lost.

Same here. And the thing is, the people commenting on this post are the kinds of people that will be the backbone of this platform and some are already middle class. We need integrity here because that is the way it will sustain long term.

Sherlock Holmes - logout =)

Wow I don't know how you have time for this but thanks.

This is the problem with whales voting for content they think others will like.

If they vote for what they like or don't vote the community will get the posters it deserves. If whales vote for a predictable formula fake accounts will rise up to supply it.

I don't care about a posters identity. If someone is paying writers to write post that's fine, it just means Steem is paying too much for particular type of content. Eventually the market will normalize but maybe the whales who set market prices should know they are duped. Maybe they should let vote because of he number of votes or because another user voted for something. Vote for what you like or don't vote!

Still I am curious what percent of users are the same user.

If someone is paying writers to write post that's fine, it just means Steem is paying too much for particular type of content

Pretty much this. The solution is more competition among content. If you think what is being posted is garbage, and doesn't deserve its rewards, then post something better. The entire pool is going to be paid out regardless. Without bringing new content, this is just a food fight between bloggers over who can get the most (or a smear campaign).

@smooth, with all due respect, there is as you said a voting pool. If the whales are creating sock-puppet accounts and setting up accounts to get votes, and setting those accounts to vote for each other, making comments on each other and pretending to have conversations with themselves. That hurts creditability and it hurts what is really left in the pool, for the end users. So, writing better content becomes kind of meaningless if the vast majority of the pool is just being spread around by a few people managing many accounts.

I agree with others who have said, it will work it's self out. It will because the whales will be sitting around posting and voting on accounts that no longer have any outside value, due to the price of SteemIt. I understand it can't be controlled. It shouldn't be justified either. My opinion.

Yeah, if this sort of thing continues, eventually steem will be worthless.

there is as you said a voting pool

Again, is the content good or bad? If bad, don't vote for it or down vote. The pool is thus protected from bad content. Simple as that.

the greatest challenge remains a way for good content to leap forward...it's still very difficult even with many initiatives. once that will happen we won't need investigation because writing good stuff is hard and time consuming a.k.a costly!

Agree. Give it time (and continue working to make things better by helping to identify the best content and promote it; but recognize, and try to accept, that not everyone will agree on what "best content" means). Cream rises to the top, but it is cream in the eye of the SP holder.

Liar! The solution is to stop pretending you like the content when you admitted it was bad!

You admitted @armen gave bad advice in his poker posts but the next day you continued to partake in your whale game of pile on! "Who's turn is it to be on top?"

You lost faith in the system smooth. Why should any of us believe in it if you don't!

This accusation is unfair and ridicuous. @smooth upvoted several comments which were critical of @armen and had been censored by flags (either by steemd or kushed). Although he has voted for @armen once besides this one that he took back, its completely absurd to try to label him as part of the "conspiracy" (assuming such a conspiracy exists and is something we should be concerned about)

I never voted for @armen's posts. That said, I do think poker content that isn't high level strategy based on game theory has value. I'd like to see someone better content in that genre than what armen is providing, in which I would vote for it. That is the solution IMO.

EDIT: I was mistaken. I thought I had blacklisted armen from my votes after evaluating the quality but that fell through the cracks. That was an error which has now been corrected.

I do think poker content that isn't high level strategy based on game theory has value.

I agree. I don't think good poker content has to be strategy (or advanced strategy if it is), but I do think if it purports to be strategy, it shouldn't have basic, egregious, absurd errors (for example, saying "this hand should be played this way regardless of stack sizes, game, table image, etc." Or "I'm right becuase (insert famous pro here) did this in a video ten years ago.

I've flagged @armens posts because I think they are overvalued, and will make steemit look ridiculous to literally every single member of the very wealthy and very active internet poker community.

Also, there are whales clearly flagging any reply to his posts that is critical or expresses disagreement, even if it is expressed respectufully.

Its one thing, IMO, to get paid too much to give crappy poker advice and make steem look foolish to every single serious poker player in christendom. Its a much worse thing to get paid too much to give crappy poker advice and make steemit look foolish and have pulpit where your benefactors are flagging anyone who presumes to express criticism or disagreement.

I'm not really into telling others how to vote, but IMO @armen's posts are far more deserving of a flag than this post. though i do not agree with the premise of this post, at least here I am free to express that disagreement in a respectful way.

I hope the whales will take a good hard think about flagging them.

Voting for perceived overvalue is absolutely valid, but I'd say writing or recruiting writers to do better content is even better, and by better content I don't necessarily mean more strategically accurate. It may be simply avoiding the most egregious errors, as you put it, and still addressing a mass audience of more casual players (of course having more of the accurate more-strategic content is great too, and we have @daut44 doing a good job with that).

There is no one other than @armen targeting the casual player as far as I know right now, so heavy flagging of his posts without there being anything better is essentially killing the category. It is your prerogative, but I would personally rather see them earn a moderate amount (at some extreme point I would flag too though) and serve to attract others looking to do the same thing (better).

I never voted for @armen's posts.

Your voting power is being used to do so - as it is also being used by steemed on many of these sock accounts. This is from @armen's latest post:

steemed 1,483,805,015 B 9.61% 17,846,341,587,042 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:18
itsascam 540,444,093 B 3.50% 16,596,368,090,896 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:21
smooth 0 B 0.00% 31,353,015,240,496 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:21
steemroller 43,412,005 B 0.28% 1,950,949,980,987 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:24
smooth.witness 0 B 0.00% 6,032,823,564,732 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:24
dashpaymag 3,425,422 B 0.02% 159,678,290,532 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:27
donaldtrump 1,567,240 B 0.01% 73,348,600,117 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:30
lovelace 1,256,025 B 0.01% 58,915,785,446 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:33

This as an error and has been corrected. See above.

The solution is more competition among content.

I find this a really poor argument. We're witnessing behavior which is basically a cartel. It's anti-competitive by nature. Unless you are implying that these practices need to be discontinued in favor of competition, it is a completely incoherent statement.

You unfortunately (for someone who has been here a while) do not understand how the Steem system operates. Voting for your own content is allowed. Voting for your friends' content is allowed. That does not constitute a cartel.

Better content will outcompete worse content because better content can still be voted by the author, and the authors' friends, but will also be voted by others who subjectively recognize its value, generating far higher rewards (due to non-linearity).

Bingo. It IS anti-competitive by nature. And if EVERY user were to operate this way, it would eat itself up. There would be nothing to compete over.

Gee, do you think there just might be something in the design to prevent that obvious failure mode? I do.

I agree. It's also a simple bug report and the directors are always aware of (and broadcasting) game changers. But ultimately people are people and there is a strategic need for KYC, on every account.

That's why we all need to only upvote content that WE like no matter how much SP we have. If we start voting for what we think others will like then it causes problems. I think that curation rewards in part tend to encourage this sort of thing.

The system accounts for use of voting bots and that is why we have weighted votes.

This is a great investigation but I don't think this is particularly evil.

It is a bit naughty but if people like the content then where is the harm?

It shows ingenuity.

Also I think there may be certain view or opinions that certain people may not feel comfortable making under their known account e.g. about their sexuality or something else sensitive.

I don't see the harm in this. We already have multiple bots voting anyway. If I had several accounts I would probably vote for my own posts in the same way that I might also pay to promote them.

If someone was creating hundreds of accounts then I might see the issue.

It is shady as hell and one of the reasons I haven't put my actual cash into this system.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.28
TRX 0.12
JST 0.033
BTC 61519.90
ETH 2995.96
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.45