Most big stakeholders wouldn't reach that high rewards (per post) without support from other users! So the user base itself decides whom to reward ... (while nobody could curb the pure self-voting when having a linear curve).
These whale supporters within the community upvote such posts early because of the short curation window and the corresponding expectation of high curation rewards. The planned removal of the short curation window would solve part of the problem and made it less beneficial to blindly upvote posts of big stake holders early.
In general I am not fundamentally against high rewards for great posts. It's a bigger effort to write a quality post than a short comment ...
Maybe you remember these days (or have been told of them) when the curve was neither linear nor convergent linear but n2 as preferred by Dan Larimer (which @afrog admires so much). These days the rewards of some posts were really high, and in my eyes a convergent linear rewards curve is the best possible compromise (I wrote more about that here).
What's wrong with high rewards? There's no better way to attract bloggers massively than high rewards. You can even save yourself some PR. Word gets around extremely fast. We've all experienced it! With each change of the reward curve the steem became less interesting and especially the professional authors saw clearly visibly increasingly no reason to waste their time for such lousy rewards.
In my opinion too high rewards for self-voting, as well as extremely high rewards for trending posts are counterproductive.
The convergent linear rewards curve (which I had recommended years ago!) decreases the rewards for self-voting, allows high posting rewards but prevents extremely high posting rewards - and thus is the best solution.
You are totally right under the condition, selfvoting remains. But the government should scratch this destructive possibility. Selfvoting drains the pool and destroys the social reputation of any selfvoter. There is no notorios selfvoter respected by communities except by pool draining whale gangs.
Here we go!!
You called me, @jaki01? What makes you think that I admire anybody like a teenage fan? I'm too old for that. I respect people who have honor, brains, visions and most of all decency. Dan is such a man.
Oops, speaking of decency! On this suitable opportunity I would like to find out why you of all people vote yourself almost continuously on the somehow virgin appearing Blurt. I could never observe this with you in such intensity. Have you lost your fortune, or do you want to prove something to someone? You of all people, I wouldn't have expected such a shabby shuffle. But of course it's your private matter, which is basically none of my business.
Don't be ashamed, it's completely alright to admire anybody, if teenager or old frog, relax. :-)
This is the answer I already gave @wulff-media:
"To earn money? :)
Here are neither flags nor diminishing returns implemented, that means self- and circle-voting are highly appreciated.
Yes, I urge to change that (because I think that in the long run that would be much better for all invstors!), but as long as nobody changes it, I see no reason to let all rewards go to Korean mini posts, and simply claim my part of the cake.
I am not an angel but an investor with self-interests ...
(OK, and as these rewards are only pennies when converted, I admit that my self-voting is also a way to hint at the obvious problem: in a functioning society there would be anybody/any means to curb that ...)"
In short:
"When living in the jungle, to survive you have to adapt to the laws of the jungle ... that doesn't necessarily mean that you prefer to live in a jungle."
That's not nice!
You could be involved in the development of alternative instruments (other than downvotes and non-linear curves) that prevent or curb abuse.
The founders and developers of BLURT invest a lot of idealism and a lot of time of their lives in this.
I also bring a lot of idealism with me.
Sabotage, which you are doing, is the very wrong way here!
This reasoning contains no ethics.
I also live offline in a "jungle". But I don't do all the bad things just because I'm not punished for them.
I am very disappointed.
The founders of Blurt explicitely appreciate self-votes!
But I don't quote @birdinc (he is for example talking about "staking") again, because I did it already many times.
How can you call anything sabotage of which the founders think it is great?
I try to show that it isn't great. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't like @berniesanders, but with his spamming he is the reason why we are having transactions fees now (so in the end it was the best he could do).
I don't know any such statement from @birdinc.
Would you please insert a link.
And, if it applies, doesn't it refer to ZAPATA?
I do it - again(!) - because it's you! Just read:
Here.
Here.
In Discord: "We want people voting for themselves on Zapata. I never understood why this behavior was so discouraged on Steem."
The last statement was referred to Zapata (the other two were about Blurt), but that's what he thinks in general.
If that isn't enough, I simply cannot help you.
Thanks for the links!
I already knew the third statement in the discord. But it clearly referred to ZAPATA, as you also know.
Isn't @Birdinc also the creator of Zapata?
I had also already read the two statements from your links. But I don't understand them as you do.
The way I understand him, he considers it an effort when a user votes himself into the trending.
The fact that it is explicitly desired or that there is a request to vote for yourself, as you have said several times now, I can't read anywhere.
These two statements of @Birdinc are not clear enough to deduce that it is explicitly desired to vote yourself.
As I also stated it was referred to Zapata, but it shows his way of thinking ...
Furthermore, I have been long enough in the Blurt Discord channel to build my opinion. But my time is limited, and I won't seek for more examples that back my point of view.
Feel free to send @birdinc a message in Discord to ask him directly.
Concerning the other two quotes, you should differentiate:
The first one has nothing to do with voting oneself into trending, and is simply about pure self-voting which he highly appreciates.
(His addition about the "UI's" expresses his hope to hide highly rewarded mini posts in trending and instead of that show real quality content there. This is his suggestion to improve the impression trending makes on outsiders - but has nothing to do with his first sentence about self-voting. His comment simply is an answer of two different aspects I mentioned in my article.)
The second has also nothing to with upvoting oneself into trending but with maximizing profits by accumulating upvotes on certain posts (which then also trend as a side effect).
That's a combination of self- and circle-voting which @birdinc also highly appreciates.
In gewisser Weise kann ich @birdinc übrigens verstehen: Er sagt ja, besser, sie upvoten sich selbst oder spielen Zirkel, als dass sie alle downpowern.
Viele Stakeholder, einschließlich mir selbst, sind bezüglich des zukünftigen Erfolgs von Blurt/Zapata äußerst skeptisch und/oder haben gar nicht die Zeit, auf mehreren Social Media-Plattformen aktiv zu sein.
In einem solchen Fall sind die beiden naheliegendsten Alternativen, entweder sein Geld abzuziehen und umzutauschen oder auf wenig aufwändige Art und Weise (Selbstvotes etc.) wenigstens für einen Inflationsausgleich zu sorgen.
Auf User wie dich oder @afrog, die sich von Blurt mehr versprechen, wirkt das natürlich umso befremdlicher.
Einer der Hauptgründe für die große Skepsis vieler Stakeholder ist, dass die Blurt-Macher glauben, auf Flags verzichten zu können.
I have lived in the Whale and Self-Voter Jungle since I have been on the Steem and have never taken advantage of this opportunity for enrichment. Only once by accident. This is the way most people who still have honour and decency in their bodies practice it. In my opinion, such behavior destroys the social reputation of the user. Even if he was as highly regarded as you once were on the steem. But these are personal resentments, maybe even from far too moral wimps, which apparently play no role where the primary goal is to recapitalize his investment with the highest possible profit. But I thank you for dropping your pants so relentlessly against yourself.
There have always been hope and also some more or less successful actions against self-voting on STEEM. Here it is appreciated, here there aren't flags. That is the difference.
It is only a moral question, one of decency. After that you will be judged by a community and therefore I find it disappointing what you practice on the Blurt. I had a completely different image of you and therefore I really appreciated you. I'm sure you know that. Your self-votes even hurt a little bit now. You've changed and you're deliberately harming a hopeful project of idealists.
Not one of the Blurt activists ignores the constant abuse of the Blockchain. These are not people from another galaxy who have no idea what's going on. They'll shut down these self-service places eventually. But right now, they have a lot of construction sites to run and only one head and two hands. Don't be so bossy and impatient!
The opposite is the case: I show these idealists that they urgently should implement flags (or something with equivalent effect) again! Otherwise I simply cannot believe in (and waste time with) this project - there won't be any future!
History tells us that on blockchain what can be exploited and botted, will be exploited and botted. Even idealists should recognize that it's important to implement the necessary measures!
Think about this: I don't like @berniesanders, but with his spamming he is the reason why we are having transactions fees now (so in the end it was the best he could do).
NO, they appreciate it. Just read:
Here.
Here.
In Discord: "We want people voting for themselves on Zapata. I never understood why this behavior was so discouraged on Steem."
I already read the two comments yesterday, but I didn't really understood their meaning quite well. But it could be that I didn't want to understand it, because just at the moment my mouth would'nt get closed. I recommend to call your other friend on occasion. He is suffering and he can't do anything with cynicism. Bloggers are always just the fig leaf for the others
Ihr könnt die Leute auch direkt im Blurt-Discord ansprechen!
I just commented to Jaki, before I had read your comment, how I understand the statements.
A note about your links:
I understand that quite differently.
The way I understand him, he considers it an effort when a user votes himself into the trending.
The fact that it is explicitly desired or that there is a request to vote for yourself, as you have said several times now, I can't read anywhere.
These two statements of @Birdinc are not clear enough to deduce that it is explicitly desired to vote yourself.
The other statement refers to ZAPATA.
Beantwortet an anderer Stelle.