So after postponing this for quite a while now I decided to take a look at the @eds-vote project's voting pattern. Disappointedly it seems to be quite automated based on certain delegation tiers and token holdings and the project only voting for accounts that hold its token/miners or delegate to it.
Either way, I think you guys probably know my stance about this by now and I don't really have much time or willpower to deal with these things currently but figured I'd make a post shining some light on it and let you share your thoughts about it.
I think it's important that we all vote on an even playing field and not based mainly on self-interest as getting upvotes because you delegate to a project or because you buy their token should be quite obvious that it seems to ignore all the other things we think are important to take into account in terms of curation.
I don't really have more info on how the voting is decided, who gets placed on an autovoter or how often and if there's cases where they're removed from autovotes due to abuse/other, but either way this activity is not something I'd encourage and feel it takes value away from projects doing similar things but not focusing their votes on those who delegate to them.
Wow, from a global perspective, I think this would be very, very bad. Hive's vision would be lost. It would no longer make sense to create quality posts, it would no longer make sense to build a community or strive to improve every day and achieve goals, and if it affects the Hive ecosystem, it would be even worse. I agree with you on many points. I also understand the point of getting noticed because it's very difficult at first. I'm in that process. Others obviously have more advantages and more opportunities thanks to this system that you don't agree with. And from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for thinking of those in Hive creating content and trying to grow on their own. As you say, the rewards aren't guaranteed, but that from time to time it's good to have their effort appreciated.
I think a balance should be found, and I advocate for not running out of ideas and being able to raise awareness with your power and your voice. In my country, they say "he who tires loses." There are many people at Hive who appreciate your efforts to encourage the proper use of our platform. Don't lose heart. Because "What if everyone did this?"
Your reply is upvoted by @topcomment; a manual curation service that rewards meaningful and engaging comments.
More Info - Support us! - Reports - Discord Channel
IIRC one of the requirements to get on the eds-vote list is to have at least 100EDSI and technically also notify them as the list in not automated as far as I know (I don't think I'm on it even though I own enough tokens cause I've never mentioned it)
Personally projects really should move away from this kickback for owning, delegating etc in the forms of upvotes. Hive will be better off without that sort of thing, at least on a automated scale.
It's a little different if they are actually considering content quality and manually curating. For instance a project like this could make it so owning/delegating etc gets to put on a priority curation list, where your posts get looked over first but still actually have to be good.
That in my opinion is a more sensible and less shady looking way of running things. Naturally it is also more work because people are needed to put in the hours curating.
I think bring this into light is a good thing and it's not to say we're out to name and shame but really highlight that there are alternative ways to run things that look and feel better in the public view. So I'm all for it.
I'm a hive witness supporting the blockchain please consider voting for me! - Find out more here!
Thanks, very well put and completely agree.
Pretty much obvious vote buy with delegation and second layer tokens, i think there's not much to say, the % of the vote depends on stake or token holdings... it's also in some relation with free compliments, that's a guarantee of success 🤣
as you say dividends to holders are ok, but vote buy not really
explains also why the token doesn't dump in value, hold it and you get upvotes
Hi friends.
If there are people who harm the platform with strange mechanisms, it's because they don't understand how valuable Hive is. I want us all to be able to grow and be rewarded equally without favoritism, and to be able to create content and be valued regardless of whether we support this project or that. And, of course, that doesn't prevent us from making a profit in other ways here at Hive, but we must differentiate between the two. Without damaging our home (Hive).
Supporting content creation, effort, and originality should be a priority when curating content.
That's my opinion. I haven't been at Hive long, but I'm learning.
I like what you're suggesting, it's all for the sake of well-being.
Isn't there a way to stop this on the blockchain level instead? I feel that this kind of post is recurrent for that past years and yet I wonder why it's not blocked at a lower level.
Don't think it can be stopped at that level, the blockchain wouldn't know which account belongs to who and self-votes or voting people who delegate to an account with said account isn't always bad, it's only bad if that's all they do.
Can't we have a maximum voting ratio for a particular account? Like, if my account only vote for you, after a certain time it would block me from voting?
We did try that a long hardfork ago, if you voted for an account more than a few times per day the next votes would lose 25% voting strength, but this also was easily avoidable through alt accounts.
EDS is another tricky one because you run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water. They have a good token system with a solid investment potential aside from the voting aspect. I think it's important to recognize that.
Yeah not really trying to put the project and underlying idea in a bad light, I mentioned many times I don't really know what they do but puffing up APR numbers through the addition of guaranteed votes as long as you delegate or hold tokens should not be part of the equation.
Why delegate to other projects that may be doing something unique and have potential if I can delegate to this that'll guarantee me a higher APR because it'll give me a vote back while the other project won't because it's using their votes for their own community or on new users, etc.
The way I understand it, EDS is their own community that is focused on helping people build wealth. They have the Saturday Savers piece and all of that. Shouldn't that community be allowed to support their own members? If I see someone buy stock in a company, I don't get mad because they get paid dividends for holding that stock. I'm not trying to argue, just understand. Is the key issue the fact that they are getting paid in HIVE? If they were just awarded EDS tokens would it then be okay?
I think the idea of communities in general is that they support each other. If they pool their resources to do it, then that's pretty clever on their part. I don't really care. I mean I hold some EDS tokens and I think I delegate a bit, but it's pretty small comparatively, my KE shows that. I just know people are taking these observations by you pretty personally, and I'm curious where the lines are about what is and isn't subjectively allowed and not.
I personally feel that using the reward pool to pay those dividends is the issue here because it directly dilutes people who are NOT part of that communities rewards (if only by a tiny amount but still)
Dividends generally are paid from profits of such companies so personally I'd like such projects to do the same rather than use the reward pool.
Absolutely see no problem in communities rewarding they own communities for being part of said community, just rewards via votes should not be tied to tokens or delegations in any sense imo.
I'm a hive witness supporting the blockchain please consider voting for me! - Find out more here!
I get that the reward pool adds another layer to things. Curation rewards could in a roundabout way be considered profits though. It still comes from the same pool. I can see both sides of this issue and that is part of the reason I have avoided being overly vocal about it. I just know there are some users on here who would get nothing in votes if it wasn't for their delegation to EDS. It's not that their content is crap either, it's just the fact that big holders tend to upvote the same accounts without branching out. That makes it tough for anyone to make any headway here. I think keeping HIVE free from abuse is important, but I also think a lot of people are getting frustrated by a target that seems to be continuously moving at the whims of some of the larger accounts. I think some empathy on both sides would go a long way.
Curation rewards that have already been paid out to the eds-vote account sure would be classed as profits but not post rewards someone 'could' get by being upvoted imo, at least in the sense of getting votes for delegation/token ownership.
Indeed this is sometime the only way people see ANY votes at all, and while 'big holders' not branching out is part of the equation, limited user base as well as abysmally poor content discovery features are also a large player in this regard.
There is a lot stacked against users trying to get seen by what little eyes are actually active on hive.
I'm a hive witness supporting the blockchain please consider voting for me! - Find out more here!
It's easy to understand why they would lean towards "schemes" like this then. I mean I know when I started here I was doing everything I could to maximize my gains, I probably still do today, but not as much because my account has become pretty sustainable and I have created a decent following. It took seven years though. Like I said in the other comment. I have pulled a lot of my delegations back over the past year. I just think a lot of people get hung up on the problems with HIVE, but no one wants to work together towards solutions.
Yeah and projects like these asking for delegations to "curate" but only voting their own bubble sure don't help make life easier for newcomers and retention, although they often like to mention that it's helping the retention of the delegators, meh.
Sending curation rewards back to holders is all fine, it's the author rewards that are the issue as they are also tied into the APR and stuff as they are guaranteeing votes on everyone that delegates/holds tokens (even a spammy account like the freecompliments community account that's quite literally deserted and autoposting the same thing over and over is still getting votes as shown in the video), this points out to the lack of overview and curation. Furthermore this just means that it doesn't matter what you post about or how active you are you will always get that vote as long as you delegate or hold tokens which goes against curation. Autovotes are generally in the same boat if left unchecked for long and if authors start taking advantage of them but with general autovotes the voters aren't getting a delegation from you which this project is.
It's as if most delegators are basically self-voting on a constant basis but through proxy of eds-votes. Imagine if ocdb only voted for people delegating to it or if zingtoken only voted for delegators and token holders no matter what they post about or how much effort goes into the content. It devalues curation and takes away from others having a fair chance at it if they come here and try to be part of the community. You always gotta ask "what if everyone did this" with these kind of schemes.
I think there are bigger issues that are keeping people from having a fair chance here, but that's just my opinion. I'm not a fan of abuse, but I am also not a fan of people calling anything they don't agree with "wrong". Like I said, ultimately, this doesn't impact me that much. I am just trying to think of the people who it would impact if something like EDS had to suddenly go away forever.
Dunno what KE has to do with anything here.
Let me try break it down.
You delegate to them, let's say 2500 HP. You are one of 100 people delegating to them 2500 HP = 250,000HP in total.
The 100 people earn tokens for delegating as well.
Every day, they vote 10% on the 100 people delegating to them.
Every week they unstake the curation rewards the 100 people made possible and use it to send out dividends to holders of said token.
Without making it too complicated with buyers of tokens being included in the voting, voting strength being adjusted, etc, already if these 100 delegators are all constantly guaranteed the votes, and if all 100 are constantly posting once daily this means they're effectively getting a vote back in return for their delegation = self-vote on top of curation rewards for their delegation in terms of token holdings.
Basically everyone involved is getting guaranteed returns + some extra through votes, everyone not involved is not getting that little extra and only curation rewards.
The project is only voting for people involved in their scheme, the project is doing better in terms of rewards compared to another project not guaranteeing votes to delegators. The project is also ignoring everyone not delegating or holding/buying their token.
Like, dunno how many different ways to put this in, but votes shouldn't be guaranteed - they are in many cases, I'm someone often getting autovotes from the same people and I'm sure you and many others are too, but these votes aren't coming from our own stake and the autovoter isn't having extra voting power/delegation because of us. That's the big issue here.
I'm pretty sure one of the parts of the equation for KE has to do with how much of your stake you have delegated out. That's why I brought it up. So you are saying self voting would be okay? There are a lot of people who would argue with you on that. They would also effectively zero out accounts for doing it. I've always understood where you are coming from, I just think the barriers for people to be successful here are to vague and too unreasonable. Why can't we focus on fixing that?
If you mouse-over KE on peakd it explains that it's just a simple number that adds your author and curation rewards together and divides it based on your current stake. Delegations actually muddy the KE as you now have another account earning curation rewards in your favor and giving you liquid Hive instead which you can power up to "fake" a good KE rating.
I guess it was something else I saw that took into account HIVE delegated out. Maybe it was a bot that someone created. I could have swore it was part of that equation though.
Honestly, I’ve always looked up to projects that support content based on quality and not just affiliation. It’s a bit sad to hear this, but I’m glad someone like you is putting it out there.
So autovote is like a bot created by an account right? i was thinking its similar with curation trail, There is way more to hive than seeing it from a personal interest kinda view, I think more bots like this account are already created and it seems to be out of hive control to stop this.
trails are basically just following a certain account's votes and copying them with a certain percentage, you can follow many users as long as you keep track of your voting power, etc.
Autovotes through bots or hive.vote fanbase means you will automatically vote on certain users you've selected whenever they post for a set amount of voting strength.
ohhhh i see first time learning this thanks for the clarification
Here
I failed to see any of the first mentioned part, do you have any examples on posts voted that don't hold tokens or delegate to the project? Other than the owner's posts.
Would @brofund account qualify for:
if not, then there's my own account which doesn't hold EDSI or delegating to it currently, I say currently because it's been like almost or more than a month since I pulled out delegations and they still haven't removed me from their voting list (it's listed manually afaik).
Hmm I wouldn't say so as @brofund made a post some time ago saying they'll move away from their current system towards manual curation, so good to see their voting people outside of their "ecosystem" as well, it's a great start.
Yeah not sure how often they update their autovote or if they remove people or are more focused on adding new delegators/holders instead. I'd be interested in if they upvote someone who never delegated/held any as that'd be one of the proofs that it's not solely based on self-interest I suppose.
Our is completely manual now. We still favour our token holders, but we go out and about.
Our curator @hopestylist can testify to that -- we hired her and she's been doing a fantastic job.
Great to hear!
Took a look at your account, you seem to be getting eds votes without delegating to them or owning any tokens, so maybe I'm wrong that they only upvote based on self-interest, unless maybe there's some other ties to it I'm not seeing and you'd know more about?
guess it's cause you upvote the creators posts as well @brofund.
I don't know exactly how long I've been in the ecosystem, but I think I've been around long enough to realize many things that I personally find discouraging.
I have learned that as a user it is my responsibility to give value to the work that I do and that deserves to have an optimal activity with foundation and respect. It is from here that the good reader and the good author start, but unfortunately (I return and emphasize this personally), I feel that somehow there are limitations when you want to vary the content and despite making the effort to maintain an activity in a certain constant way this is very difficult to be valued if there is not something in between and I think it is too much to say it.
How different it would be if everything was rewarded by giving real value to the constancy of making community in an optimal and natural way without depending on a delegation.
Not really sure what you're asking there in the end, kind of confusing grammar/translation possibly.
I mean that it is somewhat tedious to vary the content in different communities, that despite implementing a constant activity in terms of making community, i.e., visiting content, reading it and leaving a good comment. If there is no delegation in between, it is very difficult for them to value your own content that you share there.
It would be really good that the value that is given to our content is also reflected in the constant activity that I mentioned before about reading and leaving a good comment. That not everything should depend on making a delegation to be able to give value to our content.
Hopefully now if you understand or at least understand my point of view.
yeah that's kind of exactly the issue I have with these projects, they neglect regular users who still put in effort because they're not getting something in return.
That tends to be quite frustrating, hopefully at some point they will change that and give a little more priority to the community building effort.
I definitely still have a lot to learn about the platform...
My understanding of @eds-vote is that the curation is automated or semi-automated (it probably still takes a human to edit the list).
But it's part of the overall EDS ecosystem, providing a small reward to those who support it and invest in it. Yes, it can be seen in one respect as "buying upvotes", but it's clear in the documentation how the votes are assigned. I think the main point is that the delegations to @eds-vote enable EDS to get earnings from curation which are then cycled back into the system to generate further rewards for the users.
My view is that there is room in Hive for multiple different forms of curation; automated as a return for investment, automated with curation trails, fully manual, and manual curation through communities. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages, whether its seen as buying votes, voting for your friends, getting votes by only posting in the most popular communities, or being a favourite of a particular manual curator. I'll hold my hand up and say I've benefitted from all of those at one point or another ! But by welcoming all of the different types of curation it helps mitigate the impact of the downsides of all of them.
Don't really know what to say to this defending of people getting guaranteed votes mostly based on their own delegations.
I think EDS community is alive and having good ecosystem there sir.
I also delegate to EDS and yeah i get the EDS token as well. The vote are bonus tho.
If you can't see what's wrong with this after the post and the discussions in the comment section, I don't really know what more I can say.
"Interesting observation! Do you think automating voting based on token holdings is fair to smaller participants?"