RE: Why our way of distributing Steem by voting sucks, why it does not scale and how we can improve this situation

[noisy]

What if you could stay in total control of your votes and always be able to cancel those votes which you don't like?

What I mean is a such possible situation: Imagine that with current system you delegated your SteemPower to your friend, hoping that he will vote only for good posts. But for any reason he decided to vote (with your SteemPower) for something what you don't like. Currently with SteemPower delegation, you can only ask your friend to revoke his vote, he he do not have to listen. Or maybe he will listen, but he is not available to cancel a vote.

New single-vote delegation system, which we've actually build on top of Steem, will allow you to stay in a control. Truth is... that this fact alone, that you can cancel a voted casted by a decision of your trusted person... makes this person even more reasonable.

You don not need to cancel any votes, but we believe that you should have a right to do so :)

The only point I disagree on is

Could you elaborate what drawbacks of such approach do you foresee?

Comments

[rebeccabe]

Well, this, of course, is from a narrow perspective, mine. A little fish on Steemit. The hardest part about getting a whale vote is not getting one the next time. Especially in the beginning, later you learn if you write something good and the right person sees it it happens.

Then you know of other little guys who are in the Whales circle. They continue to get the vote even for some little post of really little value to many people. (again my limited view)

Your question:

Could you elaborate what drawbacks of such approach do you foresee?

Here goes:

It would piss me off and probably other people too. The thought would be why do you let someone curate that upvotes things you do not agree with?

[kriskabiru]

Suffering withdrawal from not getting another whale vote is an actual vote is an actual thing but there are plenty of whales in the sea.

[noisy]

The hardest part about getting a whale vote is not getting one the next time.
Exactly! Because even if you encounter a good post of one author once, it is really difficult to come back to everyone and reads all those posts. Simply... there is too many of them!

But if a voting power will be spread among 20 trusted experts... there is much higher chance that one of them will come back next time.

Then you know of other little guys who are in the Whales circle. They continue to get the vote even for some little post of really little value to many people. (again my limited view)

From my perspective... this looks exactly the same. But I do not believe whales are doing that on purpose... in my opinion many of them are doing that mostly because finding new good authors is really hard.. so they prefer to avoid the pain of looking for... and they decide to reward an author which they know, which is above average.

But this is a problem, because this author have less and less reasons to produce better and better content... because he gets rewards anyway. That's why I do not like an idea of auto-upvotes.

It would piss me off and probably other people too. The thought would be why do you let someone curate that upvotes things you do not agree with?

I agree with that. But once again... this is an option, which nobody have to use knowing what a reaction of people can be. But in my opinion, this is nice to have feature.

[rebeccabe]

I am sure you will do what is best. You have earned my respect by talking about solutions instead of leaving. :) Wishing you much more success.

I like your responses they are reasonable. I do think people make friends and there is nothing wrong with supporting your friends. :)