Let me ask you this, if you were a smart money investor and wanted to capitalize on Steemit. Would you invest your millions knowing that if you self up-voted, then people would try and make sure you didn't get rewarded for your post?
Mind you it is these smart money investors who replenish the reward pool, so if you scare them off before they even get here the pool size will not replenish itself, equating to reward scarcity.
Whereas, if you encourage people to take as much from the pool as they can, the smart money investors will flock here in hopes of capitalizing, and thereby add capital too the pool.
Have you considered that at all? Capital controls, and high regulation tend to stymie growth. If I had money to invest in Steemit, and learned how the platform worked. The very idea of Reward Poolice would make me reluctant to invest.
People who have large amounts of money or Steem are always going to end up pulling in higher rewards, it's the natural way of things. It's why billionaires, can earn sick amounts of interest daily, just having their money sit in banks.
They bring value with their investment, and get value in return. If the system were not set up to benefit investors, then investors won't invest.
It would be like if one day it suddenly stopped raining. Eventually we'd use up all the water, and there would be no water.
On the contrary-- If I was a smart investor, I'd recognize that if it was possible to abuse the system in the way you are describing, I'd stay away. Things assigned value NEED to have proper value, otherwise something is wrong with the system. What does "proper" mean? Who knows, but what's obvious is when something has a ridiculous value assigned to it.
Look at the extreme: Let's do a little thought experiment: say there's no "police", and all these "smart investors" are very excited and pour tons of money into the system to upvote empty posts. Raking in the dough, at the expensve of everyone else. They are excited and call others to do the same. Soon everyone is selfvoting empty posts, and nothing else is happening on the platform. Do you still believe what you are saying about "everyone should try to get as many rewards as they can?". I'll tell you what will happen-- Someone is going to question the value of the platform, and the whole thing will tank. Well, it's looking like a fun scam at that point.
Long story short: corrective votes are necessary to the platform's survival, specifically to counter abuse. It may not be a perfect system, so I believe some adjustments are in order to the incentive structure. But until then... these flags are entirely necessary.
@eonwarped your comment inspired the below thought experiment. I'd be interested in your feedback.
"Well, ever since the bot takeover the entire nature of Steemit was radically altered. Hypothetically speaking, let's say you've got two people with the same amount of Steem power." [read on..]
😅 first if you haven’t noticed yet, many of those involved are also high stake investors.
second, this platform isn’t really about high stake investors, and here is why: it’s about involving as many people as possible, so that businesses will get involved as well.
Business comes there where people are. People hold the real value.
Without good content being encouraged and spam content being discouraged, creators won’t stay around. That’s why there are curation rewards. They should be what the stake holders are after.
with great content, a good community and businesses involved Steem price will go up as well, which will bring a lot more investors than you can even think about.
that’s what everyone should be after
By the way, investors who don’t power down and hold their stake in SP also earn interest rate, FYI.
This particular content maker (I really can’t call him a creator out of the respect to the actual creators) doesn’t believe in Steem. So he takes all of his rewards out.
For the rain analogy, well if somebody puts a pipe and drains all of the water, there still would be no water. The people concerned are actually trying to protect their investments. They have the right to do it, also against other investors.
Self policing is important for a decentralized platform to work. You are actually witnessing something extremely important @thoughts-in-time. Too bad you don’t realize it.
I realize the importance, I think Steemit is a pretty cool experiment. I think it causes motivation for people to become creative, and yes this motivation is reward based.
However, the way that it's been set up, it is the larger stakeholders who get more control over the reward pool. Your issue is when larger stakeholders choose to primarily, reward themselves.
Your concern might be with the nature of capitalism in general. Burger Joints have enough burgers to feed every homeless person in their town. Yet it's the ones who have more money, that ultimately can buy more hamburgers.
Is it fair, no, but if they want to stay in business for themselves that's exactly what they will do, is reward the people who have enough money to buy all the hamburgers they can eat, or want to eat.
It's capitalism, if bernie and haejin stop punishing each other, and get back to business as usual they will both get more wealthy, and they will both get more rewards.
This will prove to outside investors that you can get rewarded here, and they will bring there money to the reward pool, causing more rewards.
I know that Haejin can produce consistent content without the help of Bernie, as he has found his niche. Yet, I'm starting to wonder if Bernie can do the same? It's almost like he needs Haejin to exist in order to justify his posts.
I think Bernie needs to ask himself, if Haejin were to up and leave, what would he post about? I think he needs to find a healthy passion, and start posting about that.
Hopefully, it would be a passion that he loves, not something that he hates. Trying to policing the behavior of others, is simply not healthy for the Steemit platform, and will most likely discourage people from investing.
I mean who wants all that drama anyways? If I was an investor, I could invest in this drama, or maybe just go out and buy a Burger Joint franchise IRL where people inherently know, that if you don't have the money, you cannot eat.
You crack me up.
Probably you lose friends frequently because you can't imagine anyone being right except for yourself 😄
You know I actually meant that for you? Bernie has been around from the very beginning with a huge stake invested, and has a lot of projects running.
What about you? What can you do apart from nagging and trying to be righteous?
I'm glad that I amuse you. I don't know about all of Bernie's projects, but good for him!
What about you? What can you do apart from nagging and trying to be righteous?I have many posts here. If you truly are interested scan the titles, maybe you'll find one that you would be interested in reading. I don't claim to be the epitome of righteousness, but I do try and strive towards it.
Antonym: "is a word opposite in meaning to another."
Antonyms for 'righteous': corrupt, dishonest, immoral, unethical, unjust, vulgar, bad, unfair.
yes, indeed vulgar might be a better description, sorry 😅
Not at all, thank you for your feed back.