Hi all,
You can see the experiment for yourself here but the short of is that there was a 24-hour proposition that gave each upvoter money relative to their steem dollar contribution. Believe it or not, for most of the experiment's lifetime you could contribute as little $0.01 steem dollars and make over $10 simply by upvoting the experiment's post. And yes, some participants ended up making even more.
(Image not shown due to low ratings)
(Image not shown due to low ratings) |
(Image not shown due to low ratings) |
(Image not shown due to low ratings) |
(Image not shown due to low ratings) |
(Image not shown due to low ratings)
Images were hidden due to low ratings.
Re. buying upvotes, it doesn't matter if you buy them at a specific price. Steem can work only if people vote on other people's content because they think it's good and therefore likely to reward them indirectly if the content becomes popular. If you introduce a direct money reward for voting, people start having a vested interest saving their votes to upvote posts that give them some cash back at the expense of regular content. This creates a shortcut from voting to reward that doesn't involve finding and upvoting good content and threatens to undermine the curation mechanism. It also divests some of the daily content reward away from authors of valuable content to authors of paid-vote schemes that bring no added value to the community. The bottom line is that allowing paid votes risks undermining the whole system by reducing the incentive to produce good content and curate other people's content and therefore affect the overall quantity and quality of content on the network.
Stake holders who are familiar with the way things are working on Steem and economically rational know that allowing votes buying is a self-defeating proposition. Accordingly you can expect that there will always be consensus among stake holders to prevent vote buying and other forms of direct an indirect bribery. This is the reason why your post was downvoted very prompty after it drew the attention of larger stake holders.
We had this conversation three times already, I'm not sure what more I can add. It doesn't matter how good your post or how helpful you are as a person: posts that contain any form of vote buying will be downvoted by stake holders because they are a threat to the model. It is pointless to make a post that will both buy votes and do something positive, it will be downvoted all the same because we just can't allow people to buy votes. In that case it's preferable to make two posts: the one with the added value content and/or where you explain your efforts to help building the community, and the one where you do another attempt at buying vote. That way we can flag and neutralize the second post without affecting the first one.
To be fair, I do not believe anyone called you a scammer because it was suspected that you wouldn't pay as promised. The reason you were downvoted is that paying individuals does not bring value to the platform and some of us value the success of platform more than $10 worth of Bitcoin.
The broader motive of the "value exchange" as you call it, is to produce a positive externality in the form of valuable content which enriches not only a specific voter, but the community and platform as a whole. Paying money to voters alone does not do that, so naturally those of us with the broader view see it as a poor value for our reward fund; therefore we downvote.
Nothing wrong with doing experiments, but for experiments to be meaningful they have to accept the possibility of an unfavorable (for some) outcome, as happened here.
But it does bring people to Steemit. I wouldn't have even bothered to touch this platform if I didn't get involved as escrow. I also got a few people from the Litecoin community to join in on this.
It also taught us all that there's a serious issue with bot abuse. All it takes is someone with a few bots and they can censor any post or comment that they want.
You are misunderstanding how this works. Unlike reddit where is is indeed documented that sock puppet bot armies can censor posts by downvoting them, in Steem, stake-based voting means that such tactics are ineffective. If someone wants to take stake that he owns and turn it into a bunch of bot accounts, that does not in any way gain influence over what could have been achieved using that same stake in a single account (in fact it is very slightly weaker).
Most of the bots on Steem are harmless gnats with little stake that are doing not much of anything except trying to make a tiny reward here and there, or perhaps cause annoyance and FUD. Your posts and comments got hidden because they were flagged by a majority of the stake that voted on them, not because of bots.
It seems quite broken though. One guy who didn't have much voting power downvoted one of my replies (before anyone upvoted it) and it was flung off the page instantly. That shouldn't happen. This means all it takes to hide a comment/post is 1 downvote before anyone else upvotes it and very few people will see it.
570 for a valuable lesson. You did OK ;)
not 570 all 0.71 btc is on escrow account ................ https://blockchain.info/address/17RAKN5r7Hp1Nou2qQfcdjLKsjfm6sZ7Rk and he paid only 0.29 among all users and only 14k sats for me lol
https://ipfs.pics/ipfs/QmTTxugLcUuRij9Yu3JJzeWqd5DRKyrdMcmMRanUg61t5o
It was an interesting experiment and one that I did indeed get paid for, it's a shame you had to see such negativity during the end of the experiment, but I can see why they were worried, just trying to protect their investment...
Welcome to steemit, anyway. Hope you enjoy your stay!
Haha, like I didn't tell you you will get downvoted to hell.
But hey, lesson learned and it made for an interesting post :)
Seems like you got some cool information out of this. I don't really understand the bot brigading if it was just an experiment to see if a proposed reward would lead to interactions...
I'm curious, how did you calculate the amount of BTC sent out to upvoters? Was it time sensitive? Like, first come, bigger amount? How did you deal with those who upvoted but forgot to comment; vice versa? According to the block explorer, some individuals received a much larger reward in comparison to others (who got mostly Satoshis).
I wonder what conclusions one could glean from this experiment other than, hmmm free stuff.
Hmmm I see. So who get's the remaining .71 BTC? Seems like it paid out $164 out of $570.
Hehe he can only report users xD fucking poor liar.
And most of money got to this alt account https://steemit.com/@newb1 and to escrow. he share only 44$ with us.(and 3 guys got 80% of this amount)
Bro I'm not holding your feet to the fire or anything I was just curious. I've never used a blockchain explorer or whatever that tracking site is. Relax.
If you verified every addy tell me about this user. https://steemit.com/@newb1 and why he got 0.094 :):) I am just angry becouse i hate liar's , cheetah and other guy's know very good how trusted you are. He just lost all his reputation.
that voting was a complete waste of time, just shows unless you have tons of steem your vote is worth shit
Only been gone a few days and this blows up. This does prove in some ways that there are more people do have bitcoins on this platform than we thought. Thanx for the results of the experiment because was curious about the flags that previous post got.
Congratulations @frosty! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Yes where you split 1 btc liar ?
And what about you'r alt account who get 0.094 haahahhahaha ?????
https://steemit.com/@newb1 Fuck you liar. Never trust this shady cunt. Downvote me more:)
If you're wondering, newb1 is a director of the Litecoin Association who decided to jump in on this. He got so much because tuck-fheman had a rather large upvote power, and they offered to donate whatever they got to the first reply to their comment (which was newb1).
You can see this isn't a scam by calculating the rshares values yourself (assuming they haven't changed).
Here's the spreadsheet with the results: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wo_cjjkWelaD4zAXUv8HhN7SCDtF0ROWUGlBMdRjOl8/pubhtml
this is fucking joke. I got 1.2k from this fucking giveaway. Fucking liar you dont split 1 btc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
he split only 0.1 it is something like 60$. Don't trust this two liars @frosty and @someguy123
Yes where you split 1 btc liar ?
And what about you'r alt account who get 0.094 haahahhahaha ?????
https://steemit.com/@newb1 Fuck you liar. Never trust this shady cunt.