In today's report, @btcmillionare shows us that you don't get rich by being generous with your money (/votes)! This report looks at Steemit users who 'self vote' on their own posts and comments. This report identifies voters who are currently engaging most actively in the practice but does not pass judgement on whether it is right or wrong. At this stage the post only looks at self votes on their own account, but in future will also take into account voting practices on linked accounts.
Selection Criteria:
- Self Vote % of 80% or above
- Self Vote Count > 5
- Top 50 Users by Number Self Votes
Steemit's Self Voters: 07 Jul 2017
| User | Total Vote Count | Self Vote Count | Self Vote % |
|---|---|---|---|
| kishore1988 | 98 | 83 | 84% |
| tard | 57 | 57 | 100% |
| btcmillionaire | 46 | 44 | 95% |
| aartijohn20 | 48 | 43 | 89% |
| tinmyoaung | 44 | 42 | 95% |
| evanrvoss | 43 | 40 | 93% |
| riosparada | 43 | 39 | 90% |
| waiyanphyo | 46 | 37 | 80% |
| retailtrader | 36 | 35 | 97% |
| ydauti | 37 | 33 | 89% |
| gentcitaku | 33 | 27 | 81% |
| ericwoelk | 26 | 26 | 100% |
| himalayan-rose | 27 | 26 | 96% |
| olli0103 | 28 | 26 | 92% |
| iqramalik | 26 | 25 | 96% |
| pedia7 | 27 | 24 | 88% |
| cscunlimited | 27 | 23 | 85% |
| dang007 | 23 | 23 | 100% |
| xxxchannel | 24 | 23 | 95% |
| saintrola | 21 | 21 | 100% |
| rogue91 | 19 | 19 | 100% |
| xpoze | 21 | 19 | 90% |
| salva82 | 21 | 19 | 90% |
| benchi | 21 | 19 | 90% |
| nickdavison | 19 | 19 | 100% |
| sheval | 19 | 18 | 94% |
| ritu | 19 | 18 | 94% |
| bindashhero | 22 | 18 | 81% |
| investigator | 20 | 16 | 80% |
| bguerrero1986 | 17 | 16 | 94% |
| organicroots | 19 | 16 | 84% |
| gliten | 17 | 16 | 94% |
| fitexercise | 16 | 16 | 100% |
| eiderahn | 18 | 16 | 88% |
| ksenja | 17 | 15 | 88% |
| hiroyamagishi | 15 | 15 | 100% |
| elgeko | 15 | 14 | 93% |
| sandrino | 14 | 14 | 100% |
| adelja | 17 | 14 | 82% |
| crowe | 17 | 14 | 82% |
| malikkhuram | 14 | 14 | 100% |
| koreanbread | 17 | 14 | 82% |
| jatinarora | 15 | 14 | 93% |
| sireland | 14 | 13 | 92% |
| nico21609 | 16 | 13 | 81% |
| izbing | 16 | 13 | 81% |
| fredinjapan64 | 13 | 13 | 100% |
| wwamd | 16 | 13 | 81% |
| rockjon | 14 | 13 | 92% |
| tom1993 | 13 | 13 | 100% |
I think a weekly summary with top 100 would be much more useful.
I don't feel like going on a flagging spree every day.
What's wrong with self love?
Selfs everywhere.
I have the same question. I was always like myself, why not?
haha! time to get these guys to do more with their votes. Top 100 would be great! \m/
I used to be there too, until i discovered that i can share :))
Feels better to share the love... and get it back in return via followers etc :-)
"This report looks at Steemit users who 'self vote' on their own posts and comments. This report identifies voters who are currently engaging most actively in the practice but does not pass judgement on whether it is right or wrong."
The answer of right and wrong should be found and clarified as well.
Well, there is nothnig wrong about voting for yourself. It is just all about your attitude - if you share something valuable for the others or if you just harvest Steem Power while posting craps.
There is always an option to flag somebody if you can't stand what he or she does. Or we shall simply discuss, vote fairly and/or support projects such are @minnowsupport. And care about ourselves, because neither of us can force somebody to do something.
I, personally, vote for any of my posts but (almost) none of my comments. I prefer to vote for the others who helped me or opened my eyes in some way. However, my vote worths about one cent, hence a week later, there is no profit of it.
I agree with your sentiment @godfish - if you are voting for your own blog posts that's normal. If you are voting for the occasional comment to push it to the top of a heated discussion to make it more visible then that's also fine.
However - if you check out some of the people from the posts above. 'Tard's' recent comments are just the numbers up to 116 (https://steemit.com/@tard/comments) repeated, which they come back a few days later and upvote when their steem power recovers. In the past they just kept commenting 'test' and upvoting themselves.
I am not here to judge anybody. I don't have spare money to invest into Steem Power (If I counted it correctly, 100 Steem Power gives you about 0.035 USD per vote and cost aprox. 165USD).
So I just try to do my best and together with my friends we are building up the Czech community, since we all believe that Steemit's future is bright. And we want to help our fellows, most of them don't speak English enough to be able to write English posts. It is not easy but we believe in it. You can check it yourself: #cesky.
If I invested money into SP, I would most definitely support my mates and myself. It is an investition and I would expect some revenues of it. As anybody else. But still, I believe in sharing, mutual respect and donating, hence i wouldn't kept my voting power for myself.
Still, it is just a therory. Send me about one million SP and we will see :))
anyway, thank you for the discussion, I appreciate people like you. I am following you by now and I am pretty sure we'll continue our chat above some other post soon :)
It's quite a heated discussion - the arguments against self voting are pretty obvious. On the other hand, people who have invested a lot of their personal money into Steemit feel it is their right to self-vote to maximise their return on investment.
Honestly it is fiscal responsibility. However, it is bad for Steemit. Folks who self vote are either trapped by their SP being linked to their VP, or don't understand that using votes to encourage others for the content you like, encourages them to reciprocate. For accounts that don't hold significant SP, this is their most profitable option, and the basis of social interaction on Steemit.
Were VP weighted by reputation, or not weighted, then curation wouldn't be mined for financial gain, and investors in Steem would simply be inuring capital gains from appreciation in the price of Steem.
The price of BTC three years ago was similar to Steem's price today. Recently BTC was $3000. If Steem was just 1% of that amount present investors would see a gain of 20000%. This is only a fraction of Steem's upside potential, as BTC shows - and BTC is just a store of value, not driven by Steemit.
As I've posted elsewhere, Steemit has far higher purposes potential than simply as a way to stay in touch with friends and family, or competing for 'likes'. Should Steemit even approach meeting some of those purposes, the price of Steem will leave BTC in the dust.
This is why it is those who might most profit from Steemit being forked to prevent financial manipulation of curation, whales, that should most oppose that financial manipulation, because that gaming of curation for profit debases Steemit, and threatens those incredible returns.
Glad you are doing this. Did this influence you by chance? Maybe great minds just think alike.
My post on this idea the Scarlett letter
Initially, I upvoted this post, but then I realized that it's a list of minnow accounts. It's unfortunate to shame them, as these are not making much on their votes and may not understand the platform that well. The list that matters should show the amount that someone has been earning. Weekly (not daily) and based on earnings from self-votes, not just raw votes. Even better, it would show distribution of votes to a handful of accounts (for those who do not vote on others), which also would account for sock puppets.
I am not a fan of shaming, but if the community can keep an eye on self-upvoting and sock puppetry, then maybe we won't need harsh rules. So thank you for the post. I think the daily votes list is not the right snapshot to illustrate abuse, and it unfortunately shames minnows who may not know what they are doing while others are making far more from this, but thank you for the effort and for contributing to this conversation.
While you clearly understand why self voting is occurring, and why minnows are actually decreasing their potential income by self voting, you seem not to have grasped how potential financial manipulation can harm those with significant holdings of Steem.
Maybe you do, and just don't mention it, I dunno. Those circle-jerking cliques are extracting income now for themselves, at the cost of depriving rewards that their votes might otherwise send to content creators whose work they want to support, and those creators are frustrated, perceiving the unfairness of a system mined for profits.
This debases curation and Steemit, and decreases the quality of content on Steemit. That, in turn slows Steemit's growth, which is the primary driver of the price of Steem. Indeed, failure to retain new accounts in the long run could well cause the price of Steem to decline, rather than increase.
This price appreciation in Steem is a far more rewarding mechanism for whales than a few upvotes could ever provide, and by failing to demand that curation be free of manipulation, they are failing to demand that Steemit be able to grow and provide high quality content - and failing to demand that price appreciation that depends on Steemit.
What I see is that those who are self voting, or circle-jerking, have no confidence that Steemit will provide price appreciation, and are mining for profits now, because they won't get them from future growth. They seem not believe in Steemit's future.
I can understand their viewpoint, because the Steemit code is not preventing this financial manipulation, and Steemit's future depends on fairness and content quality. This provides a basis for doubt in Steemit's future potential.
Changing the code to ensure that rewards are distributed via curation without being mined, gamed, or harvested by financial manipulations is the best way to restore confidence in investors that their best option for capital gain is price appreciation.
I'm right there with you on monitoring abuse. I just think that particular list that was not a good one because it showed only people who are drawing minor rewards. None of those names are making much, so it's barely any drain on the system. If you want to stop abuse and shame somebody, then look at the people with more voting power who are voting less but allocating a lot more to themselves on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, we're treading on dangerous ground here, as I am aware of a mechanism potential to strip virtually ALL rewards from the rewards pool, so don't wish to further elucidate. This mechanism isn't profitable, which precludes it's employment absent non-financial motives, and makes it unlikely to develop organically.
You are not incorrect that these accounts are but minor players, although perhaps, given the 400% fewer votes potential after HF19, and the dramatic increase in self votes that has further decreased the available number of votes per post, their strategy pencils out as financially optimal.
The problem for them is that their strategy practically precludes growth, which is dependent on using votes to benefit others.
So, I'm not really in favor of 'shaming', as I see that regardless of SP holdings, those egregiously self voting are doing so against their self interest financially. They just fail to understand the dynamics of growth and how, for minnows, using their votes to reach out to others as they form a community is far more profitable over a given period of time than self votes, and how for whales, using their SP to strongly encourage quality content creators potentiates price appreciation in Steem, which provides capital gains far in excess of curation or author rewards.
It will take a very long time to extract sufficient rewards from the rewards pool to equate to the 20k% price appreciation that Steem attaining 1% of the price of BTC creates as capital gains, and tbqh, Steem's potential to surpass BTC due to the use case (Steemit) is quite robust.
That growth requires an equally robust delivery of vests to a diverse community of authors, which is demonstrably not happening, due to self votes and cliques (at least in part). It is difficult for those able to extract income now from rewards pool mining to forego that income (particularly while others continue to do so) in order to curate content on the seemingly fanciful speculation of Steemit's growth to rival Fakebook, and BTC.
The code being permissive of such rewards pool mining is an indication that such long term growth isn't the intention of Steemit devs and investors, which I find unfortunate, as I believe strongly that such growth is far more potential than might seem obvious initially.
I agree in that there should be more information on the account holders. However I do not agree that holding others to account is completely negative.
If I were a whale, I would vote for myself twenty times a day either :)
You would, or you wouldn't? :P
I would :) ten bucks for nothing? why not, man? :))
As I have replied earlier, you realize that many people find whales self votes to appear greedy? The concentration of the rewards pool in a handful of accounts also prevents rewards from inuring to a far broader base, which prevents those rewards from achieving their purpose: rewarding content creators.
The price of Steem is dependent on the performance of Steemit. Should Steemit rapidly grow and keep those new accounts, the price of Steem will rise tremendously. Whales own Steem, and stand to realize gains ranging from thousands to millions of percentage increase.
If those new accounts are discouraged because the rewards are being concentrated through financial manipuations, and they can't get them, that price appreciation won't happen, because Steemit won't keep those new users long.
That's why not.
Why are we just looking at comments, There are people putting out 10 post plus a day. They also have a lot of steem power. they are taking out thousands a day.
My best guess (I am but another commenter on this post) is that there is general acceptance of upvoting one's own posts, but the community frowns on self voting comments.
What is the difference though a comment is just a smaller post. There are authors who put out a 1 min video 15 times a day and take out 100 plus, That is the same thing. These guys could just post 15 times a day and then no big deal. Platform still suffers the same.
This post received a 2.8% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @analytics! For more information, click here!
This comment received a 100% upvote from @analytics thanks to @analytics! For more information, click here!
Interesting report. This topic is sorta blowing up lately.
liked and followed :)
If you write 'liked and followed' on a million posts you can at least like the posts.. or follow the people...
Hi there I do upvote myself too but I upvote other articles too and on those that comment on the post
But I hope this self upvoting won't stop as it will just make people leave steemit I think 🤔
Keep it up
Love your article upvoted and I am your new follower
I think is upvoting yourself is a non-issue. Let people do what ever they wish to do, they're going to do just that anyway, holding some sort of moral superiority pageant based on shame will not help the community
What a call out!!!
I guess everyone looked at this post to see if they are on the list, lol. Nice work policeman @analytics
I didnt know that i cant like myself. Sorry for that, can you like me? :D
Congratulations @analytics! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPWhile this is interesting, I'd like to see a post that lists people whose majority of votes are spread out to a limited number of people, say fewer than 10?
Nearly everyone masturbates at one time or another; circle jerking is confined to a select few.
WHAT!
I'm not on the list?
I demand a recount.
I'll have to try harder.
Glad to see someone doing this, it's a plan of mine to do something like this too. However it would be more in line with @donkeypong 's concerns, and would go deeper than just vote count.
Keep it up but should be improved.