Interesting. I put some accounts on auto-vote whom I visit once in a while to see what they are posting but want them to get my vote in case, I forget or am busy.
I don't know if I understand that correctly. But is what you are saying that I support an abusive principle with putting some authors on auto-vote?
Do you have any recommendations where I can go to use auto-vote and where they charge me a fee for that? I would be wiling to pay some amount of SBD for this service. Or do you recommend to delete all auto-votes and from now on curate only manually?
No you're not taking part in abusive behavior if you're just automatically voting for people who you've consider to have built a reputation for decent quality content over time and trust their upcoming posts.
Abusive behavior generally comes from vote selling (someone pays you $10 to get roughly a $10 vote), vote swapping (eg you vote my posts $10, I vote your posts $10) and post farming etc.
Good. Thank you very much. Sometimes things here get so overly complicated that I start to see UFOs where there are none.
I am not always in favor of every post but I do compensate that with previous content and my overall impression of the person I have my auto-vote on. None of them acts in a way I'd have to become alert.
Vote selling and swapping is so far clear. And I heard a lot about the multiple accounts abuse and stuff. But what is post farming? Is it that someone sets up a blog and then only fills it with the same contents on a regular basis and gives himself upvotes/buys votes/sells votes = harvesting artificially and worthless stuff?
Yes.
Basically these practices all share something in common: they're content indifferent voting behavior.
When you vote on your own post farms, or swap votes, or sell votes, you don't care about the content itself. If the content isn't the thing influencing your decision, and this becomes widespread over the entire platform, than we have a worthless platform.
That's basically what happened for the last 2 years but the new economic incentives gives us tools to fight it, such as free downvotes.
Thanks again. ... I don't vote for myself. Neither my posts nor my comments. It's a principle I follow. I never downvote anyone of whom I in general have a possibility to approach in person first.
Maybe if people would have behaved in this way we wouldn't have the problems we are facing (but who knows the hidden benefits of that whole thing). But I find it nevertheless an interesting experience and I think people learn a lot here in terms of the issues entering an unregulated space. They face the great issues of society which is reflected in democratic history. We experience here what the settlers of unknown territory once went through who grew to communities and nations. Maybe those mistakes were needed in order to realize what we blame others for is not that easy.
By the way: Actually, the reward pool: Does anyone know it's size and when it'll be near emptiness? If you find that a silly question: I rarely hear it asked ... :)
The reward pool doesn't empty
It comes from inflation, the currency increases at a certain rate, around 8%pa right now, but goes down over time.
About 65% of that goes into the reward pool split 50/50 between author and curators.
Yes, it was a silly question, wasn't it? :D
From all the high arousal on this platform, a newcomer on this platform might assume that, no?