It's funny. A friend I recently recruited, @holoz0r was saying I could upvote myself substantially now, as 100% upvotes will net about $5.
I suggested that at some point, someone will write a tool that ranks steemers based on their history of self voting.
I think a lot of people will regret their previous opportunism.
Great ideas both of you @mattclarke and l0k1. It's really frustrating to see some users upvoting each and every one of their own more or less useless comments to get a few bucks each time.
I don't think it's a problem. Larimer even discussed the issue of self-voting quite extensively, and basically, it's just about optimising the distribution of new tokens. It wouldn't matter whether people self vote or not, in my view, because on average, based on the relative levels of posting activity and voting, pretty much, though unevenly, distributes a roughly stable amount of new tokens in a given time period.
It's best to think of self-voting as simply claiming interest payments. You can't make more than a certain amount this way. Writing the content that gets a lot of votes will always be more profitable.
I agree that writing posts will be more profitable, but not necessarily writing comments. For people like me, who comment a lot without writing our own posts (well up until recently at least), it's worse.
Plus, really what I dislike the most about it is not even how much money people make from it in relation to how much others make, but rather how it looks. The psychological aspect of seeing particular users hand themselves 5 bucks for commenting "OK" back to someone etc.
I dunno, you should keep watching your curation rewards, they should still be ticking up even though you are only mainly a commentator. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all rule about when it is etiquette to self vote, but if you aren't writing posts, you are missing out on a share of the steem that more stupid people are happily taking.
It may be that HF20 includes a ban on self voting. I can see this shaping up to be a HF worthy issue. Essentially, the self voters will force those like you to self vote, or watch them get the steem instead. This is an unacceptable situation and I think it will need to be remedied.
However, the increased decay rate of voting may ameliorate this, as the self voters spend their voting power down to the 20s and lower, and your received votes will probably be relatively worth more. So the steemit devs did consider this and it was included in HF19, and may be sufficient a remedy. The honeymoon will be brief for self voters, I think.
So it could go two ways, I won't say with certainty which way it is going to go.
there was a few posts... https://steemit.com/@dantheman it's a ways down.
He made a very big and bad gaffe by self-upvoting with his huge SP to promote his post, that was kinda the last straw for many of us.
It's funny. A friend I recently recruited, @holoz0r was saying I could upvote myself substantially now, as 100% upvotes will net about $5.
I suggested that at some point, someone will write a tool that ranks steemers based on their history of self voting.
I think a lot of people will regret their previous opportunism.
indeed, it could be added to the reputation score...
Great ideas both of you @mattclarke and l0k1. It's really frustrating to see some users upvoting each and every one of their own more or less useless comments to get a few bucks each time.
I agree and this can be analyzed and mended in the future. Ah I just love software, it's ideas in silicon!
I don't think it's a problem. Larimer even discussed the issue of self-voting quite extensively, and basically, it's just about optimising the distribution of new tokens. It wouldn't matter whether people self vote or not, in my view, because on average, based on the relative levels of posting activity and voting, pretty much, though unevenly, distributes a roughly stable amount of new tokens in a given time period.
It's best to think of self-voting as simply claiming interest payments. You can't make more than a certain amount this way. Writing the content that gets a lot of votes will always be more profitable.
I agree that writing posts will be more profitable, but not necessarily writing comments. For people like me, who comment a lot without writing our own posts (well up until recently at least), it's worse.
Plus, really what I dislike the most about it is not even how much money people make from it in relation to how much others make, but rather how it looks. The psychological aspect of seeing particular users hand themselves 5 bucks for commenting "OK" back to someone etc.
I dunno, you should keep watching your curation rewards, they should still be ticking up even though you are only mainly a commentator. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all rule about when it is etiquette to self vote, but if you aren't writing posts, you are missing out on a share of the steem that more stupid people are happily taking.
It may be that HF20 includes a ban on self voting. I can see this shaping up to be a HF worthy issue. Essentially, the self voters will force those like you to self vote, or watch them get the steem instead. This is an unacceptable situation and I think it will need to be remedied.
However, the increased decay rate of voting may ameliorate this, as the self voters spend their voting power down to the 20s and lower, and your received votes will probably be relatively worth more. So the steemit devs did consider this and it was included in HF19, and may be sufficient a remedy. The honeymoon will be brief for self voters, I think.
So it could go two ways, I won't say with certainty which way it is going to go.