There have been some concerns in recent weeks over the issue of sock puppets and suspicious accounts that have been able to funnel thousands of SBD from the rewards pool.
In a recent post from @bacchist, he laid out a clear link from a whale account – @kushed – that had two other accounts linked to it. One of these accounts – @lakers – had created two additional accounts that have found their way onto the daily trending pages over the past several weeks, instantly achieving large payouts from their very first posts (reminiscent of the account, @msgivings). It was admitted by @kushed in Rocket Chat that he indeed created the two accounts in question. He had claimed that these accounts were created for two anonymous bloggers from The Huffington Post that he had brought to Steemit in order to increase both post quantity and quality.
These two accounts are @honeyscribe and @lifeisawesome.
According to @bacchist’s post, the claim for at least one of those accounts – @lifeisawesome – appeared to be dubious, as the poster admitted in a comment that he had never written “on a worldwide platform like [Steemit.]” As @bacchist correctly pointed out, The Huffington Post has a wider reach and is more well-known than Steemit, and any blogger would certainly know this.
We’ll come back to that at a later time. For now, we can examine some interesting points about the other account: @honeyscribe.
The first days of @honeyscribe
After this account was created by @lakers and before it engaged in any posting of its own, it coincidentally upvoted a post by @lifeisawesome. We may be able to draw conclusions about this, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with upvoting another account, regardless of how coincidental it is. So we’ll skip the coincidences and get right into harder evidence.
Let’s start with the votes for @honeyscribe’s very first blog post.
This list of votes seems perfectly normal at first glance. However, we see that name again – @lakers. That’s not necessarily anything unusual, as @lakers (who is also the whale, @kushed) is the person who created this account and claims that he knows this blogger and actually brought them to the platform. But what are the other names of the first voters on this post? If you noticed, the first upvote came from the account @america. It’s a great thing, isn’t it? Getting early support, especially from America? We should all be so lucky, right?
So, let’s take a look at this account.
Well, that’s strange. Of all the curating that could be done on Steemit, this account has only curated @honeyscribe and @lifeisawesome. Not only that, but this account was the very first upvote on the very first post from @honeyscribe. So, we have ourselves another strange coincidence – but what of it? Well, that was only the first vote. Let’s look at the second account, @angelika.
Another strange coincidence? The second account to vote for @honeyscribe was also an account that has only ever curated @honeyscribe and @lifeisawesome. Now this might pique one’s interest. What are the other accounts on this list? Let’s look at the next one, @davo.
Something here just doesn’t seem right, does it? The first three accounts voting for this new author have only ever curated this author and another account directly linked to/associated with it. Going down the list, @guinness, @japan, @kiso, @lakers, and @wd40 all show identical or similar curation – only for the same two accounts. That’s eight in total, all upvoting the same two accounts. We know @lakers belongs to @kushed and we know that he created the two accounts being upvoted. All of these eight accounts were mined in April and May, just as this account was:
If you recall from @bacchist’s post, @salus is linked directly to @kushed through a wallet transfer.
You can see all of these accounts repeat their upvote on the second post from @honeyscribe – this time immediately followed by @sarkis and @kushed himself. (The @sarkis account is just like the others already mentioned.)
So, we have ten accounts, plus @kushed – all mined in April and May, and all voting for the same two accounts. One of these ten accounts has direct transfers to @kushed and one of them was admitted by @kushed as being one of his that created the @honeyscribe and @lifeisawesome accounts. Given this information, it is clear that all of these accounts are very likely owned by @kushed. We know that @honeyscribe is one of his creations, so let’s explore some peculiar activity with this account and another that behaves almost exactly like it.
Are @honeyscribe and @perspective the same person?
This is a great question – and I believe we have definitive proof that the posts are indeed originating from the same source.
When @perspective burst onto the Steemit scene, the very first account that they followed was @lifeisawesome – and then honeyscribe not long after. What are the odds that a new, suspicious account would begin following other previously identified suspicious accounts?
OK – so maybe that’s not very compelling evidence. But what if I told you that the very first person to upvote @perspective’s very first post was @honeyscribe? Would that be more convincing?
Who was the first person to comment on the post? Again – it was @honeyscribe.
On the third post by @perspective, we have both @lifeisawesome and @honeyscribe upvoting within the first four curators.
Now I’m certainly no expert on trend analysis, but I’d say that a pattern is certainly developing between these accounts. Nevertheless, let’s move on from curating and commenting for now. Let’s look at some really hard evidence.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Beginning on September 11, 2016, both the @honeyscribe and @perspective accounts were posting once every day. On that date, the posts from each user contained images hosted by imgsafe.org. Also on that date, both accounts posted an image of a piece of paper with the Steemit logo – as what seems to be an attempt to “prove” that there was indeed a real woman posting on these accounts. These are the two images:
Just a coincidence? Perhaps – but there’s much more to it. On September 11th, 12th, and 13th, the images from each of these posts were all hosted by imgsafe.org.
Then – strangely – both accounts changed image hosting on September 14th. Well, there’s nothing wrong with that, right? People change hosting accounts. It’s not a big deal, is it? Well, this could just be another coincidence – except for the fact that both of these accounts switched to the exact same hosting site, and a rather obscure one at that: anonmgur.com.
For three days in a row, both @honeyscribe and @perspective hosted their images on anonmgur.com, before again switching back to imgsafe.org on the very same day – September 17th.
If that isn’t an obvious indication that the same person is controlling both accounts, then perhaps we can find something else that’s peculiar amongst them. Say, perhaps – a formatting issue?
Alright – so one coincidental formatting issue that occurs on the same day doesn’t prove anything. But what if there were two, by the same two accounts…in consecutive days?
So, we have two accounts with questionable origins posting similar images on the same day, changing image hosting accounts on the same days to the same hosting sites – twice, and also having the exact same formatting issues in two consecutive days. We also have a link between a third account (@lifeisawesome) that interacts with both users – an account that was created by the same person (@lakers/@kushed) who admittedly created one of the other accounts in question here (@honeyscribe).
If you’re not yet convinced that these two accounts are being controlled by the same person, then I’d say that you’re really not paying attention. Still, there are other similarities and coincidences between these accounts. Observe how these two accounts attribute their images, for example:
Or the choice of images used (which also happens to be popular among many of these socks in general). One of these sets of images is from today.
Is Steemit being defrauded?
Reading through recent posts by @honeyscribe and @perspective, it is clear to me that they are being written by the same person. The layouts are very much the same and their writing style and topics of their posts are very similar as well. A lot of the posts are about relationships, fear, and hiding from their past or from certain parts of society. Even the categories selected are pretty much the same – relationships, psychology, and life.
Given all of the information and links between these accounts, it’s undeniable that @honeyscribe and @perspective are the same person. But the question remains: Is there anything wrong with that?
One answer would be: Not necessarily. However, the problem isn’t that they’re posting under different accounts. The problem is that they are fabricating interest in these accounts by pretending to be different people.
Either this person has some serious schizophrenic issues, or they are deliberately attempting to deceive readers. What could the purpose for the deception be? Possibly to trick readers into believing their lie so that they can manufacture interest in their posts – either to hide the fact that there is generally no interest in these posts while they are being upvoted by whales, or as an attempt to bring legitimacy to the @perspective account that is still relatively new. It could be the same thing that occurred with the @msgivings account when @honeyscribe was still fairly new to the scene.
Now, some people will call all of this a “witch hunt.” But can we really deny what is actually happening and claim that the evidence presented here isn’t real? As we can see, there is a pattern developing between multiple accounts – all with questionable origins and all of these suspicious accounts are being upvoted by the same whales. We already know of one that is deeply involved in the creation and curation of these accounts. In future postings, we will explore additional sock puppet accounts, additional peculiar behavior of and interactions between the accounts and the whales supporting them, and the same whale collusion involved in upvoting their posts.
To give you an idea of how bad this is – in the past month, just the identified accounts have already pulled over $75,000 SBD in payouts from the rewards pool. This rabbit hole runs very deep and these issues need to be corrected if we want a healthy Steemit platform. Without trust – especially in the “investors” – it’ll be extremely hard to succeed.
I fully expect this post to be flagged, despite the fact that there isn't anything wrong with the facts presented in it. I understand that my reputation is on the line - however, my purpose is to help clean up the image and credibility of Steemit. If I'm to be flagged into oblivion for that, then I'll take that hit. I hope others will support this and not support those responsible for the continual deceit.
Please Re-Steem this post.
Follow me: @ats-david
It may not be appropriate for @steemed @itsascam @steemroller and @kushed to downvote this post. Since they gave many upvotes to aforementioned accounts.
lifeisawesome
honeyscribe
Their downvotes should not be surprising, considering their level of involvement with these accounts. This will only add to the suspicion.
It should also be noted that @steemed, @itsascam, and @steemroller are the same person.
I am providing voting pattern data by requests. Please see here:
https://steemit.com/stats/@clayop/access-to-voting-pattern-data-by-request
Since nobody else has commented along these lines, I'm just gonna say this. If someone wants to have multiple accounts and post multiple things from different accounts, as long as those posts aren't plagiarized etc, I don't see any issue with that. It could be seen as milking Steem but the stakeowners of Steem get to decide what to do with their votes, for better or for worse. Their own votes ultimately influence the value of the network and thus their own stake in it.
This has been my attitude on this entirely and I told ats-david that when he asked me in private chat.
I don't care who owns what account, nor do I care who votes for it. I evaluate the posts and decide whether I believe they are adding value and/or whether they constitute some form of abuse such as plagiarism. The rest of this post and others like it is indeed a witch hunt based on jealousy and perhaps competition from other bloggers or others spreading FUD on behalf of other platforms.
I didn't flag because it was already flagged by the time I saw it, but if not I probably would have, because I see the activity @ats-david and his collaborators are engaging in and posting about to be not adding value. EDIT: after revisiting the post I saw it attracting some rewards so I went ahead and added a flag
That said, I do support @ats-david having the right to post about his findings. I just don't think, as a stakeholder, those sorts of findings should be rewarded or given high visibility on the bases of stakeholder votes.
I would have to disagree with you on one point: ats.david is adding value. He is revealing facts which people can therefore make opinions about. He is also illustrating that people have a right to speak freely about things they notice. Ned, the CEO of Steemit obviously sees value in providing data to the community. Your definition of value seems a bit shallow, actually. Based on your desire to police people who are adding value to Steemit, I have just removed my vote for your witness. I think you fail to see how your actions continue to agitate honest people who care deeply about the integrity of this platform and the needs of free-thinking individuals.
I feel like flagging your comment, but I refrain from doing so because you have a right to your opinion, just like everyone else. But the feeling persists. You are not our overlord.
Or perhaps less shallow.
Well that's the incredible thing about blockchain. Eventually in the future someone will build a tool analyzing all transfers, votes etc. and "fake" transactions will be exposed. similar to cheetah finding duplicates etc.
Well said @stellabelle
thanks, I am annoyed by whales trying to suppress the little people from learning and sharing useful information and data. It's unacceptable actually.
Agreed, well said @stellabelle
Calling this a "witch hunt based on jealousy" is grossly unfair. If the @msgivings case was fraud, let's have some highly visible and whale-powered value judgements made about that, and with similar emotive weight (perhaps this has already happened). No matter how good the system is, how so elegantly tweaked it be, the core value of Steemit is the people, and @ats-david @bacchist et al. are supporting that value.
Thank you. I've been hearing this for weeks when it comes to these sock accounts. I'm starting to realize that the people claiming this don't actually know what a "witch hunt" is. So, perhaps I'll help them:
"the act of unfairly looking for and punishing people who are accused of having opinions that are believed to be dangerous or evil" - Merriam-Webster
This is certainly not a witch hunt. This is a proper investigation into accounts that are defrauding Steemit. The prior accounts that got away with taking many thousands of SBD from the rewards pool - even through copy-paste and other forms of plagiarism - still won't be condemned by these people constantly claiming "witch hunt," "jealousy," and "FUD." This particular user that you're responding to even goes as far as trying to insinuate (on multiple occasions) that I'm here on behalf of a competitor to harm the platform. However, I'm not the one siphoning the many thousands of SBD rewards out of the rewards pool every week.
I think this type of poisoning-the-well and veiled threats of flagging from whales does more damage to the credibility of the platform than I could ever do. The abuses of those with the most influence on this platform does not go unnoticed and, sure, I may be flagged for speaking out, but that's not going to deter me from doing what's right. Some of the people making rather large sums of money off of this platform ought to follow the example of those with the least amount of influence who are doing everything they can to make Steemit successful.
Rather than condemning those who find the flaws and want them corrected, why not use their power to negate the behavior of the bad actors? Not voting for them as witnesses would be a great start. Let's see how many people are willing to do that.
I've already removed my vote for Steemed and Smooth's witness. It took me a long time to see the truth, but it's pretty clear now. My trust in them has been smashed. Smooth has done a lot of work, but I am very upset by him flagging this post. I dislike him thinking that he is some overlord. While I refrain from flagging, he goes ahead and does it to a post that contains data. He will not get my witness vote.
"I think this type of poisoning-the-well and veiled threats of flagging from whales does more damage to the credibility of the platform than I could ever do." And this is why, when I speak to Steemit users who are abandoning the platform, say that they are leaving. These whales are damaging the health of Steemit. They are cutting Steemit by the jugular. Their greed is destroying it. It's quite ironic, isn't it? They threaten us, censor facts, in the name of "not adding value' when they are actively destroying it. Absurd.
I think, that apart from the perps, this @msgivings problems is not being faced for philosophical reasons. I get the impression that a powerful meme in this community is that of the "free market", and this together with the feeling of Steemit's game-changing potential --
-- result in an unwillingness to intervene. However, with the help of Professor Hindsight, I see that one of the pillars of the world view we were lead to (educare) in my British Grammar School was laissez faire, and then this whole concept was largely bullshit: the benign British gentleman with a battleship of tommies ready on the horizon.
The system here is good, but the humans need to stand up and be counted. As you are doing.
That is exactly what you attempting to do.
No one is 'defrauding' steemit. They are using the blockchain as the rules allow. If there were some sort of "exploit" that allowed people to vote multiple times with the same SP, earn rewards in excess of that determined by the programmed formulas, etc., that would be something reasonably described as "defrauding" Steemit. Otherwise, it is 'defrauding' only because you and your accomplices don't like the posts, don't like the rewards they earn, don't like the authors remaining anonymous, believe that you have the right to impose your will over that of the SP holders, and have taken it upon yourselves to declare this as 'defrauding'. There is no other basis for it.
I don't know how else to say it: If you like the posts, vote for them. If you don't like the posts, don't vote for them, or if you feel strongly enough they are bad for the system, then downvote them. The blockchain then impartially determines the outcome. That's what the system does, and as long as no one has discovered an "exploit" such as I described above, your complaints are just disagreement about subjective value being taken to an endless platform of trolling and counter-trolling instead of left to the blockchain to objectively count votes and decide on rewards. I prefer the latter.
If I recall when @msgivings was uncovered as posting plagiarized content, there were whale-powered downvotes applied. I only did not downvote IIRC because the post was already heavily flagged and well below zero when I saw it. Otherwise I would have.
If you like the content, upvote it. If you don't like the content, don't. If you think it is harmful to the community or overrewarded then downvote it. That is what happened with @msgivings and that is what I hope will happen with any future harmful (plagiarized, etc.) content and that is what I'm doing with this post (which districts from evaluating content and attempts to shift focus to individual actors) as well.
The great thing is, that everybody can vote for what-ever they want to. If you don't like don't vote.
While I get that the accounts in question seems to be from one person, I would think that maybe the whale is helping that reporter to format and upload things. (just a unlikely but possible scenario)
So it's interesting to read this and to see how we can see everything on the blockchain but in the long run only quality content will guarantee a piece of the cake.
I am sure that if this really was an attempt of a whale to get higher rewards out of the system, that they will re-think their actions and maybe contribute in a better /different way, which ultimately benefits them the most as the price of the vested Steem might go up in the near future.
I see an issue. This kind of sock puppet account makes getting away with junk like plagiarism much easier. Just blame the sock puppet and start over. The kind of lower quality junk that gets upvoted just because the account is owned by a whale makes SteemIt look bad to the world too. I'd say that's an issue. Why defend this kind of thing?
https://steemit.com/whales/@throw-away911/a-funny-interview-with-steemed
But if the whales are using meat puppet accounts to pile onto this is anti-social behaviour that will be the end of steemit. The whales have lost faith in the platform and so there is no point in any of us staying to watch them give the rewards to each other.
Yes. Plagiarism is one thing, but I don't like it when people suggest policing Steemit to deal with things like what @ats-david is pointing out. There has to be a way to increase trust without killing the free market. I wrote my comment before I refreshed the page and saw yours, so it's redundant. ;)
You did make a good point that people have the right to point out what they see happening.
Of course, it's good to take a look at stuff like this to see if it is abusive.
Of course, and no one prevented it. The system is censorship-resistant, and anyone can post whatever they want. Others can vote as they see fit. The system works and is working, but we can still disagree on whether your method of demonizing people and attempting to label using their use of their SP and their votes as they see fit as 'fraudulent' or 'abuse' is a positive and way forward for the community. I don't believe it is.
If it ends up being plagiarism or other form of abuse (as was the case for @msgivings) then by all means, present the evidence of that. Leave build the attempts to build a case on the basis of guilt by association.
https://steemit.com/whales/@throw-away911/a-funny-interview-with-steemed Only the whales can police the whales. As we can see that they don't care to, it means they no longer care about steemit. If they don't care they will reap whatever rewards they can while they watch it fall.
Interesting point. @throw-away911, is there a solution?
This reminds me of a conversation I just had with someone about politics. The other person was saying that checks and balances are necessary in the world and that countries tend to police each other, and I said that the world's "leaders" are all in cahoots and are draining the rest of us. Lol.
Welp...
Damn. That's what you're saying, isn't it? :/
There is certainly a free market for weeding out bad actors. The critical aspect of this is information and the dissemination of it. I have simply provided that information. It's up to users to decide how to use it in order to "increase trust" on this platform.
Completely agree with @pfunk!
People should be able to vote how they want. I do see value in posts like this. They can let those of us that are on here know the situation. I already do not vote on things unless I like them. A lot of the things I vote on do not make it to the trending page. I don't see the value in thousands of dollars per post for @msgivings @mrron @honeyscribe and the others writing short pieces with little depth. Yet I am not the one voting with a powerful account... It is a way to game the system. There is no way to stop gaming the system, but we can keep each of us informed so we don't add to the game...
Exactly right. It's about having the right information so that we can all make informed decisions about who we want to support. This is the exact opposite of someone flagging your post so that it isn't as visible, simply because they don't like that you're providing that information.
And yes - there is plenty of value in information gathering and presentation.
Frankly, I think if it get's down voted anymore it should be put on twitter or facebook.
@dantheman just gave it an up vote. :) That's a nice thing. I am sure he can appreciate the effort that @ats-david put into this. The activities of these people ARE their right to vote. Yet it does give a negative impression on steemit. So making the rest of us aware so we can start voting accordingly, and deciding whom we do and do not for witnesses be a more informed thing is a nice thing. Keep up the good work, is all I can say. Keep it informative, but POSITIVE and we're all golden!
I am very impressed and I feel a sense of.... This actually might work! Due to @ned and @dantheman choosing to vote this up. I know it must have been hard, but in the end they are only protecting their own investments. They have more to lose than any of us. I feel proud.
I don't think it was hard for them at all. I think they're annoyed and are happy to see that someone has gone to the trouble they don't have time to do.
"Size doesn't matter", she said.
Ok <--- :)
EDIT: Supposed to be an example of a small response. :)
Just trying to bring a little laughter to all of this seriousness.
This is good information for people to have. Like you and others said, it helps to inform us with the facts. The value of this site is actually dependent on people like you to come forward with information and let people make up their own minds. I am glad to see that @ned has voted for this post. This gives us all confidence that we are free to speak our minds, even if it contains information that some wish to suppress. You provided facts not opinions. There is no reason to flag this at all. Flagging something that shows data is really showing something else, which we all know.
@stellabelle said this and I started replying when not viewing full context, went to respond and it told me I was at the 6 post limit. So I am posting it here.
I agree. I am a strong advocate and out spoken about the fact I think the flag should only be used for Plagiarism, Spam, and Abusive posts. I've held this stance for months. I do not endorse flags for disagreement. I consider that a hostile act. It is penalizing someone subjectively.I do believe I need to extend this. If the investigative efforts have been proven to identify what is likely a sock puppet style account then there may be good reason to flag such posts. We need to discourage this. If it is endorsed by specific individuals then we need to withold our support for them if this is how they want to use steemit. Then at least their actions would be confined and only contributed to by themselves. These actors are powerful, so that still will put a big drain on the reward pool. I also believe this is something worth knowing about when we cast our votes for witnesses. I won't vote for people partaking in sock puppet activity or endorsing it as a legitimate undertaking.
I applaud the efforts of @ats-david, @bacchist, @klye, and others for investigating things like this. I know some of them have gone negative in some comment sections, but we are human, we are passionate. People are going to make mistakes. If they are mistakes of passion in a comment section let's cut them some slack. It is clear from their blog posts that their true intentions are to make steemit a better place and attract more people.
The flagging and undue effect of that from steem powerful is one of the main things that has kept around a half dozen people I tried to get to start using steemit to come here. They really don't like that ability and despite the fact that censorship does not exist due to it being on the blockchain, without the technical ability and wherewithal to get at those posts (Understeem) it is effectively censorship as far as they are concerned. We as a community can do things like this post and our support of people making these posts to make such activities unattractive, and unrewarding. It doesn't all require magic code. We as a community can make some things happen as well.
Thanks for your response @stellabelle.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments even if I may not agree in every sense. I do, however, agree on the question of censorship. I don't agree with the current design of the UI that aggressively hides flagged posts and low-rep posters and I consider that a form of censorship. I would very much prefer if these posts were just given no extra visibility or rewards (assuming votes go that way) but not actively hidden. Extra visibility and rewards must be earned, and no one is entitled to that, but hiding and suppressing goes farther, and gives unnecessary and excessive power with voting rights (SP). That includes cases where I have flagged posts. I may disagree with rewarding them, but I don't want them suppressed either.
I work hard to get my steem power. It'd be nice if I could pay people that create the type of content I like without fear of someone else coming and taking that away from them because they don't like the topic or because they disagree with something that was said.
If you don't like something... move on. If you like something vote for it. To me that is simple.
To some the argument is that content they don't like is drawing from the collective pool of funds to be distributed. So? Did I earn my steem power or did I not? Do I have the right to up vote things I enjoy?
If I do not then why is it okay for very powerful accounts to up vote fluff and drivel... and spend 10000 times what I can spend, which also takes from the pool and my flag to reduce that piece I believe is overpaid amounts to removing maybe $0.01 - $0.02 cents from the post?
I don't BELIEVE (yes I recognize it for the opinion it is) that YOU should be able to dictate where I am allowed to allocate my steem power. I really don't care if you like something or not. My vote is about my interests not yours. Likewise, I am sure you like some things I do not. I may think they are worthless. Yet I am not going to go try to reverse your vote.
Overall I believe it works fine until people obviously farm the system or consistently up vote friends posts that are mediocre quality for massive sums of money.
I don't see a change to the code fixing this. It is more us as a community reaching consensus and trying to steer it by discussions such as these.
Awesome point and I think about that all of the time, when a person flags another's post that person has invalidated everyone else's position.
Dan voted for it as well. :) Informed we can make a difference. We can at the very least let the participants know we can see, are watching, and have some community members who are good investigators. They can carry on and keep supporting their own puppet accounts, but to do so they will gradually lose the support of the rest of us for even their own accounts. I assume being a witness is important to some of them. Yet, hopefully they realize we are watching closer and closer and every account they do like this adds more information about the pattern. The more we see the pattern, the more we see the actors. All we need do is remove our support.
For me, this post changed how I feel entirely about SteemIt and it gave me hope for our future. Based on the upvotes from the founders.
Agreed it shouldn't be flagged as long as nobody is being harmed though and that is a difficult line to tread.
My main concern is that if someone (such as the user being discussed) had valid reasons for using another account to post something very sensitive then revealing this kind of information here could actually get them into trouble by revealing and associating that information with their main indentity.
For example in some countries homosexuality is a crime and could result in punishment or even death. I'm sure there are other examples of similarly dangerous information that someone may wish to keep separate from their usual posting account.
In some respects this kind of investigation could be considered by someone in that situation to be akin to being doxed and publicly shamed.
I'm not saying that is the case here as I do not know enough about it but it is good to take account of the potential reasons why people may be using different accounts.
Whenever one is delving into the matters and actions of others one must keep ethics in mind.
Perhaps I'm overly cautious and overthinking this? I don't know.
If this user was actually trying to distance themselves from the other account, they wouldn't be interacting with it. Also, both accounts are already anonymous. As kushed had stated originally, these accounts were allegedly created with pseudonyms for those purposes. Creating a second account to write about the same topics would be unnecessary. And again - it's the fabricated "dialogues" between these accounts that are most telling. I have no qualms with anonymity. That's not the issue. The problems with this are multifaceted.
Interesting. You make some good points which I hadn't considered.
Dox-ing is essentially a form of witch hunting and in-fighting that is harmful to the community and system as a whole and I don't support it (thus I have now flagged this post in part to stop incentivizing such activities). That said, if you are in such a situation yourself, you would do well to better protect your privacy and not leave so many 'clues' around to be found.
This would be a good point, IF... They weren't just posting about relationship stuff, food, etc. It isn't that they are using more than one account, I get that point. It is that there are many accounts involved and this is not the only case. Also, no personal information was released just plain account activity which is available to anyone who chooses to do the research and find it.
Impressive research.
If this is a free market, there is nothing wrong with a person creating two or more accounts, not revealing his or her identity, or voting early on content made by someone else for whatever reason. There's also nothing wrong with pointing out things you see happening.
More than one account is not the problem. https://steemit.com/whales/@throw-away911/a-funny-interview-with-steemed
The problem is taken the rewards from the pool all for themselves and their meat puppets.
Steemit is only a scam if the whales make it a scam.
However, who can become a whale? Anyone with enough money to invest in steem / steem power can. That skews the premise Steemit was built on, to create a platform where individual contributors are incentivized to create + curate content valuable to others.
I understand @dan & @ned created Steemit in such a way to preserve and grow their personal investments, and part of that is coding "the rules" to not only insure that, but also to insure the platform itself is sustainable. However, other whales have invested who found a way to game the platform, taking advantage of the rules @dan & @ned put in place to protect and sustain the platform.
I see no inherent problem with multiple accounts operated by one real identity and anonymity of accounts. The root causes of the gaming arise from bots and the fact that anyone regardless of their intentions can buy large amounts of influence. Would it possibly help to level the playing field to limit the power of bots inversely proportional to the amount of SP the bot operates with? If you're a whale why do you need bots to further bolster your influence?
Another aspect that complicates our view of activities on Steemit is the nature of these "bots". What is a bot? It is simply a set of rules (i.e. a computer program or code) that carry out a predefined set of operations. Those operations can be very simple or very complex. It's conceivable that highly complex bot programs based on AI could be used to take advantage of loopholes in the steemit platform to "game" the system. It would be interesting if there were a way to identify the actions performed by bots and surface that info to the steemit community. Should bots have a reputation score also?
I'll readily admit I don't understand the nuances of this platform, not only from a social perspective but also details in the coding. Having been involved with the BitShares platform long before Graphene existed my knowledge is far above average on the technical underpinnings of Steemit, but I wouldn't hazard to quantify it with on a 1 to 10 spectrum, it's just too complex a beast.
From the earliest discussions about steemit I've always had reservations about the ways in which it might be gamed, either through "voting guilds" or other means. I don't think guilds are necessarily bad, if they are nothing but subsets of the community that vote with a collective agenda. I see the biggest threat being what I opened this comment with, the fact money can buy a lot of influence irrespective of concern for the platform or the community. It's the same potentially corrupting influence that money has on politics - a tendency towards centralization of power.
Perhaps in the final analysis we'll discover that any type of PoS system, be it capitalism or PoS/DPoS blockchains, will as free or rigid as the strongest influence in it allows. Since @dan & @ned aren't the wealthiest people on the planet, their influence can be super ceded.
This post was indeed very brave, and I commend you @ats-david for your willingness to post it and the thorough analysis it contains.
Well, no one wants to read shit posts. And the real writers who work for real media companies are laughing at Steemit's trending pages when the shit posts rise up. That's a real problem.
I agree, but what constitutes a "shit post" is definitely a subjective judgment. What means would you use to define that to improve the quality of content? One thing for sure is no matter how you define it there will be haters and those who will feel slighted by the dividing line. However, that doesn't mean those standards should be undefined or hidden, otherwise we will all end up with a "shit platform" that drives good content out.
Catering to the least common denominator in an attempt to appeal to the largest audience will not sustain this platform. There is a measurable spectrum of content quality, the question is by what standards are those measurements quantified by the platform and to what degree are those standards open to be defined?
I agree that there's nothing wrong with that. But the problem here is the deception, combined with the shady origins and the collusive voting. There are more than these accounts involved.
True, but all of that is not in any way prohibited by Steemit, so what are we going to do about it? I agree with @smooth that
The problem is that this pattern of behavior will necessarily limit the range, quantity, and quality of content. Whales colluding to vote on each other do so at the expense of new authors being rewarded for their content. Without incentive for the creation of new and diverse content, it will not simply appear of its own volition and continue to be produced without recognition.
This behavior is anti-competitive.
I think it's disingenuous to fall back on tropes like "free market" and "competition" when this behavior is, in essence, no different than a government granted monopoly. This is the antithesis of the concepts that are being used to defend it.
I see what you're saying, and I agree with this:
I've seen new users (one of whom was my mom!) come to the site and become discouraged by the lack of attention paid to some excellent and completely unique posts. I respect @ats-david's decision to disseminate the information.
However, I don't mean something figurative or metaphorical when I say "free market." I mean that we are all free to NOT support things we don't like, to make deals or alliances with other users, and to build on Steem in ways that create more legit reasons to buy and sell the tokens. If I were a brand new user of Steemit right now, I'd market and advertise my posts and go to @robinhoodwhale, @coinbitgold and her academic post initiative, or someone who promotes and features new content.
If this is really as flawed as a government monopoly, maybe it's time to make big changes! It's always been centralized, so what do you expect? The whales are mainly the initial investors.
@edgeland thanks for the mention. Appreciate it for the recognition. As much as i would like to agree with you, the journey to promote new science and academia writers has been difficult because I do not have much of an influence at steemit. And upvotes on my content come from whales who maybe think i have good content or who think it is good to promote good science writers. And i am grateful to them for for believing in me.
I have a few comments on this post:
Even if evil whales are ousted, can we be confident that there will be no new evil whales in this anarchic system in the future ?
Let's admit that in this current system, the voting algorithm is easy to game for whales.
I respect @ats-david for posting this and giving this information to all users. But on the other hand, is it really good to flash "dirty laundry" publicly? IMO, it is not good for the steem prices and investors confidence......
@bacchist you know I think a lot of you. So this is going back in the way back machine. Considering the debate you and I had relating to anarchism almost two months ago now, this response of yours has me grinning from ear to ear. Good work on investigating this by the way. I've been following your progress too and spreading the word.
Is this debate about anarchism accessible on Steemit? Lol.
I think we all finding out who we really are with this post. I am of the opinion that radical transparency is best. I feel that excessive policing of our thoughts and whales who try to threaten us when we express critical thought processes is a bad thing, perhaps even the main driver of steemit's downward spiral of late. Once people are afraid to speak up, then, we've lost it. The ones who seek to silence us from looking at hard data are sealing their own fate, I'm afraid.
I appreciate this response from you, given our philosophical differences. I don't necessarily hold "free market principles" and competition to be ideas which I'd prefer to build a society around. But at the same time, I do think that whatever principles a given society is based upon should be applied uniformly, and not arbitrarily enforced depending on how it effects those with the most power.
Yes, thank you. Your link brought me here.
It absolutely is very different from a government granted monopoly in that no legal authority backed by force is protecting it.
Understood.... Hypocrisy does suck... So if a certain system is espoused yet it is not followed then you would feel justified in speaking up. So would I. We differ in the capitalism vs communism aspect of things, but that does not mean I do not respect you. Your mind and efforts are very telling. Keep it up. You have my support, and the support of others.
People can use this information however they wish. I am simply disseminating it. That is also not prohibited. In fact, information is extremely valuable - and vital.
EDIT: "Competition among content" won't resolve any of this. When there is collusive voting among whales, it doesn't matter if there is other better content. They can simply continue upvoting their own socks because they have the influence to pay themselves a large portion of the daily rewards. If there are not other influential voters who are downvoting to offset that, then it can't be prevented. In order to neutralize bad actors, there must be an equal opposing force willing to act. Ignoring it doesn't work.
Once it is exposed, I don't expect it to be policed per say, but I can choose to mute these accounts so I never accidentally vote for them.
Thank you by the way, for taking the risk to post this. I agree it shouldn't be policed, but it should be outed, so the community can decide if they wish to support it or not.
This was a brave post!
Your vote wont make a difference. As long as the whales keep voting for each other there will be nothing left in the budget for your post.
https://steemit.com/whales/@throw-away911/a-funny-interview-with-steemed
Two parts - debate you asked for:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/so-i-encountered-an-anarcho-communist-and-this-is-my-discussion-debate-invitation
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@dwinblood/fire-in-the-hole-anarcho-capitalism-communism-debate-discussion-part-2-after-many-comments
Thanks! This looks like it's going to be fun to read. I'm an anarchist without adjectives. ;)
Great post, thankyou for your research. I'm not a fan of these sort of sockpuppet accounts but also dont want to see a witchhunt either . I have no problem with anonymity, but coordinated whale selfvoting means the quality of the content becomes irrelevant.
Upvoted, followed you and muted the other accounts, since they clearly dont need real votes to succeed here and i want my votes to have impact on actual people, not just make a whale even richer...
I resteemed this as well for visibility, brave post, hopefully i dont piss off whales with my support but yolo id rather be happy then rich :)
Thank you. Don't let them intimidate you. As you can see, there is a lot of support for those who provide this information to the Steemit community.
This is what investigative journalism used to look like before it was strangled by politics in the real world. Thank goodness for the transparency of the block chain! @ats-david, I salute you.
This article makes a reasoned argument and presents facts. It's good journalism.
Thank you. I appreciate that. This wasn't a solo effort and there's still more that needs to be addressed. As I said - this rabbit hole is fairly deep.
Who helped you? @bacchist? Or someone off-scene? Are you going to be doing some more digging?
More digging? You know it!
But really, most of the digging has been done. Now the information just needs to be presented.
This type of reporting should be encouraged. From Bill Moyers: "One of my mentors told me that “News is what people want to keep hidden, everything else is publicity.”
In the same speech, he goes on to say:
Transparency can be maintained on the block chain. Why even try to turn it into the kind of place where everyone is kept in the dark? Bill Moyers's ultimate argument is that investigative journalists need to be paid higher wages. We should be rewarding good journalism on Steemit.
slow clap
THIS is some good investigative skills man.
Wow. We have a sock puppet infestation here. -_-
My Respect @ats-david Great investigation! Upvoted & Read all the way through. Keep it up!
I have read the other comments and how some are not concerned about this behavior, but this does make the site seem a bit shady and it is difficult to decide to invest money into what feels like a fixed system. Another important issue here is... The bots are multiplying, the human's are not. Low User adoption creates a short-term investment, where people are "Milking the Steem". I completely understand not policing these issues, but as a non-whale, real user, who actually has money to invest, I guess I just don't think this is what is in SteemIt's best interest.
Out of the 3k-ish users a day, how many of them are bots? There is no way to answer.
@whatsup I think you have hit on the big problem there.
Perception is important and right now we need to retain users.
Although many of us accept that these kind of techniques to game the system are a part of life new users may not see it the same way.
We need more users and at least some mainstream acceptance to survive. Right now I estimate the vast majority of people here are from the crypto world and we tend to have similar views that have come very much from our involvement in the crypto community.
The vast majority of Joe and Jane Public likely don't think the same way and we will have difficulty attracting them to anything that looks remotely unfair to them.
I'm not sure what can be done though.
Even if the community decides someone is deliberately acting against the best interests of the platform there is little that can be done if they are sufficiently powerful.
Everyone knows it is happening, but this is the first time someone put that much effort into investigating it, so it can't be hidden. When the whales know their are "Whistle-Blowers" they will have to police each other as Dan and Ned have done here or they are going to watch the rest of their investment slip away. They have so much more to win or lose it is in their best interest to start to challenge each other to treat this site like they want it to have creditability, gain value and last. We can't shouldn't police it, just allow people to report on it. If it doesn't start to get addressed, it should get reported on outside of SteemIt on Crypto sites and other places. However, I have seen tonight if the correct amount of research and evidence is presented Ned and Dan will step in. I have regained a huge amount of trust that I had lost.
Same here. And the thing is, the people commenting on this post are the kinds of people that will be the backbone of this platform and some are already middle class. We need integrity here because that is the way it will sustain long term.
Sherlock Holmes - logout =)
☺
Wow I don't know how you have time for this but thanks.
This is the problem with whales voting for content they think others will like.
If they vote for what they like or don't vote the community will get the posters it deserves. If whales vote for a predictable formula fake accounts will rise up to supply it.
I don't care about a posters identity. If someone is paying writers to write post that's fine, it just means Steem is paying too much for particular type of content. Eventually the market will normalize but maybe the whales who set market prices should know they are duped. Maybe they should let vote because of he number of votes or because another user voted for something. Vote for what you like or don't vote!
Still I am curious what percent of users are the same user.
Pretty much this. The solution is more competition among content. If you think what is being posted is garbage, and doesn't deserve its rewards, then post something better. The entire pool is going to be paid out regardless. Without bringing new content, this is just a food fight between bloggers over who can get the most (or a smear campaign).
@smooth, with all due respect, there is as you said a voting pool. If the whales are creating sock-puppet accounts and setting up accounts to get votes, and setting those accounts to vote for each other, making comments on each other and pretending to have conversations with themselves. That hurts creditability and it hurts what is really left in the pool, for the end users. So, writing better content becomes kind of meaningless if the vast majority of the pool is just being spread around by a few people managing many accounts.
I agree with others who have said, it will work it's self out. It will because the whales will be sitting around posting and voting on accounts that no longer have any outside value, due to the price of SteemIt. I understand it can't be controlled. It shouldn't be justified either. My opinion.
Yeah, if this sort of thing continues, eventually steem will be worthless.
Again, is the content good or bad? If bad, don't vote for it or down vote. The pool is thus protected from bad content. Simple as that.
the greatest challenge remains a way for good content to leap forward...it's still very difficult even with many initiatives. once that will happen we won't need investigation because writing good stuff is hard and time consuming a.k.a costly!
Agree. Give it time (and continue working to make things better by helping to identify the best content and promote it; but recognize, and try to accept, that not everyone will agree on what "best content" means). Cream rises to the top, but it is cream in the eye of the SP holder.
Liar! The solution is to stop pretending you like the content when you admitted it was bad!
You admitted @armen gave bad advice in his poker posts but the next day you continued to partake in your whale game of pile on! "Who's turn is it to be on top?"
You lost faith in the system smooth. Why should any of us believe in it if you don't!
This accusation is unfair and ridicuous. @smooth upvoted several comments which were critical of @armen and had been censored by flags (either by steemd or kushed). Although he has voted for @armen once besides this one that he took back, its completely absurd to try to label him as part of the "conspiracy" (assuming such a conspiracy exists and is something we should be concerned about)
I never voted for @armen's posts. That said, I do think poker content that isn't high level strategy based on game theory has value. I'd like to see someone better content in that genre than what armen is providing, in which I would vote for it. That is the solution IMO.
EDIT: I was mistaken. I thought I had blacklisted armen from my votes after evaluating the quality but that fell through the cracks. That was an error which has now been corrected.
I agree. I don't think good poker content has to be strategy (or advanced strategy if it is), but I do think if it purports to be strategy, it shouldn't have basic, egregious, absurd errors (for example, saying "this hand should be played this way regardless of stack sizes, game, table image, etc." Or "I'm right becuase (insert famous pro here) did this in a video ten years ago.
I've flagged @armens posts because I think they are overvalued, and will make steemit look ridiculous to literally every single member of the very wealthy and very active internet poker community.
Also, there are whales clearly flagging any reply to his posts that is critical or expresses disagreement, even if it is expressed respectufully.
Its one thing, IMO, to get paid too much to give crappy poker advice and make steem look foolish to every single serious poker player in christendom. Its a much worse thing to get paid too much to give crappy poker advice and make steemit look foolish and have pulpit where your benefactors are flagging anyone who presumes to express criticism or disagreement.
I'm not really into telling others how to vote, but IMO @armen's posts are far more deserving of a flag than this post. though i do not agree with the premise of this post, at least here I am free to express that disagreement in a respectful way.
I hope the whales will take a good hard think about flagging them.
Voting for perceived overvalue is absolutely valid, but I'd say writing or recruiting writers to do better content is even better, and by better content I don't necessarily mean more strategically accurate. It may be simply avoiding the most egregious errors, as you put it, and still addressing a mass audience of more casual players (of course having more of the accurate more-strategic content is great too, and we have @daut44 doing a good job with that).
There is no one other than @armen targeting the casual player as far as I know right now, so heavy flagging of his posts without there being anything better is essentially killing the category. It is your prerogative, but I would personally rather see them earn a moderate amount (at some extreme point I would flag too though) and serve to attract others looking to do the same thing (better).
Your voting power is being used to do so - as it is also being used by steemed on many of these sock accounts. This is from @armen's latest post:
steemed 1,483,805,015 B 9.61% 17,846,341,587,042 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:18
itsascam 540,444,093 B 3.50% 16,596,368,090,896 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:21
smooth 0 B 0.00% 31,353,015,240,496 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:21
steemroller 43,412,005 B 0.28% 1,950,949,980,987 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:24
smooth.witness 0 B 0.00% 6,032,823,564,732 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:24
dashpaymag 3,425,422 B 0.02% 159,678,290,532 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:27
donaldtrump 1,567,240 B 0.01% 73,348,600,117 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:30
lovelace 1,256,025 B 0.01% 58,915,785,446 100% 2016-09-22T08:42:33
This as an error and has been corrected. See above.
I find this a really poor argument. We're witnessing behavior which is basically a cartel. It's anti-competitive by nature. Unless you are implying that these practices need to be discontinued in favor of competition, it is a completely incoherent statement.
You unfortunately (for someone who has been here a while) do not understand how the Steem system operates. Voting for your own content is allowed. Voting for your friends' content is allowed. That does not constitute a cartel.
Better content will outcompete worse content because better content can still be voted by the author, and the authors' friends, but will also be voted by others who subjectively recognize its value, generating far higher rewards (due to non-linearity).
Bingo. It IS anti-competitive by nature. And if EVERY user were to operate this way, it would eat itself up. There would be nothing to compete over.
Gee, do you think there just might be something in the design to prevent that obvious failure mode? I do.
I agree. It's also a simple bug report and the directors are always aware of (and broadcasting) game changers. But ultimately people are people and there is a strategic need for KYC, on every account.
That's why we all need to only upvote content that WE like no matter how much SP we have. If we start voting for what we think others will like then it causes problems. I think that curation rewards in part tend to encourage this sort of thing.
!dramatoken
You've got
DRAMA!To view or trade
DRAMAgo to steem-engine.com.The system accounts for use of voting bots and that is why we have weighted votes.
This is a great investigation but I don't think this is particularly evil.
It is a bit naughty but if people like the content then where is the harm?
It shows ingenuity.
Also I think there may be certain view or opinions that certain people may not feel comfortable making under their known account e.g. about their sexuality or something else sensitive.
I don't see the harm in this. We already have multiple bots voting anyway. If I had several accounts I would probably vote for my own posts in the same way that I might also pay to promote them.
If someone was creating hundreds of accounts then I might see the issue.
It is shady as hell and one of the reasons I haven't put my actual cash into this system.
Booya, the founder has spoken! Thank you @ned. Payout is back! Visibility is back! This behavior and suspicious activity to funnel payouts into posts by their "friends" or whatever is going on needs to be looked at. It's not simply "free market dynamics" of "competition", because the payouts come from the community pool! We are all paying for this funneling and siphoning of payouts to certain accounts some "whales" selectively upvote.
And the second founder has spoken! @dantheman and @ned know how to recognize real issues. These shill whales need to stop downvoting valid posts that address real issues in the community, just because they are involved in the shill behavior that is being exposed.
But why is this post being down-voted? Some people are not liking the fact that this information is out there, and is trying to censor it. That is worrying!
It has been worrying! However, tonight I feel a new sense of trust with @ned and @dantheman for their upvotes.
I'm going to read this a few more times, but great work its very detailed.
Followed! Can't wait to see the next investigation.
@ats-david
You sure have some guts there, knowing, they will put you out of business !!! Haven't you seen , with great power they can shut you up within seconds.
Even the truth is out there. There always a coverup.
Take Care
Until some other whales come along and back them up. Which is what has happened. :)
He took a risk, KNOWING he'd be downvoted into an oblivion. He got lucky with @dan and @ned. No one saw that coming. He's made history. :0)
So I am new to Steemit and have little knowledge regarding this. What I did do was read the white paper regarding the concept as originally presented. Now having read @ats-david's article and the white paper I have to ask, how is what he is describing not considered the very collusion addressed in the paper? Granted the paper concedes that this is not preventable by any means except other whales negative-voting the person gaming the system, so I have no role in correcting this. But it is in the best interests of the community if the whales work against this, at least in my opinion and the opinion of the paper.
Having said that, if Steemit appears to be a circle jerk where whales are voting to put steem in their own pockets eventually the smaller marine life will simply give up and move on to other venues, making the currency essentially worthless. I will trust the market forces to prevail in the end. So I ask, why is ats-david getting negative votes from the folks heavily invested in steem? Wouldn't his work be benefiting you by protecting your investments?
Just the thoughts of a newbie trying to figure out the politics of all of this.
Well said.
ONLY THE WHALES CAN POLICE THE WHALES
You hit the nail on the head!
That's right. This type of collusion among whale voters can only be negated by equal or more powerful whales. That's why it's important for this platform to have those balances - especially at the top. The bad actors need to be identified so that the community can decide how to deal with them - but ultimately, if they are some of the most powerful, then the decision to counter their behavior lies in the hands of very few people.
I'm getting the flags from the very people who are colluding with each other in order to prop up the accounts mentioned in my post. That information on collusion will be presented in future posts.
This was good, I once had an opinion about how aliases would work on Steem, but you have just changed it a bit. Thank You 😉
I read through almost all of your post and I am impressed with your research as well as piqued as to why you did it. However, it is a valid concern. Let's just say that some people, especially those who have gender identity issues, often wear masks, and what are accounts but masks. But ultimately, they did the work that led to them being able to put multiple masks on and make use of them to cross promote each other. It is also why you have pretty much, in my mind, proven conclusively that these identities are one and the same.
Whether you can say it is a scam, or not, is hard to say exactly. In some respects, such theatre qualifies as valid work towards the rewards gained.
To answer why I have presented this information:
The questions about the accounts already identified and that will be identified have been unanswered for weeks. Any attempt to get answers from those creating and upvoting these accounts - some of which are in fact sock puppets, admittedly - has been met with personal attacks, inflammatory accusations, threats of punishment, and actual heavy flagging from the very people involved with these accounts and their friends. At some point, asking for these people to help resolve the issue became futile. They are not interested in that, for (to me) obvious reasons.
I want other users to have the same information that I have and I want them to be able to make informed decisions about their investments and how they use their influence on Steemit. This particular post has already proven what I had set out to prove - a sock puppet, created by a whale, was being collusively upvoted by that whale and his friends. Regardless of why it was occurring, it was in fact occurring. Unfortunately, it is not limited to this one account. There are others tied to this same whale and his friends.
As to whether or not this is a "scam" -
There's certainly nothing "in the code" that prevents this from happening, but that doesn't necessarily make it socially acceptable. Sock puppetry is generally frowned upon in social media. It's not the same as simply using a pseudonym for writing, especially in this system where readers/curators are using their invested influence to give rewards. Deception in this regard could certainly be considered a scam, particularly when it's perpetrated by those with the power to dole out a large portion of the daily rewards pool - and particularly when they knowingly support the sock that they created. When multiple whales are involved with multiple accounts, it can certainly - at the very least - appear to be a scam and may influence the decisions of potential investors, whether they believe that they can also do the same with their own investments or whether they decide to avoid the platfofm altogether. Neither are good for the overall health of Steem and the Steemit community.
I hope this adequately addressed your inquiry.
@ats-david, one thing (to play devil's advocate for a second) that stands out to me as a possible shred of evidence to show that @honeyscribe, etc. are NOT written by @kushed, but are indeed separate individuals from another account, is the complete difference in writing by each author on the https://steemd.com/trending/abuse thread.
If you look at @kushed's long, drawn out defense, it is riddled with poor syntax, horrible grammar, incomplete logic, and weak rebuttals. The writing is hard to follow, disorganized, emotional and reactionary, difficult to trust, and generally headache inducing.
@honeyscribe's response, on the other hand, is well written. It's organized and thoughtful, has better syntax and paragraph structure, follows a flow of thought that is easy to follow, models after the kind of style experienced bloggers use (with headlines, short paragraphs, concise points, etc.) and altogether seems quite sincere.
If I were jumping on THAT discussion without much information, I'd say the account was a friend or a relative. She writes like a woman, uses a lot of emotion and thought-process words that women writers use more often then men.
She could just be some gal he knew and had her write this. But they are completely different writers at least in this rebuttal. I'm just saying.
But even if that were the case, and she's a real person, the puppetry and the gaming of these particular accounts is absolutely undeniable. And this discussion is a very interesting one and deserves attention.
The question is, if this person is real, and she wanted to start an account, and she knew @kushed, and @kushed knew he was a crappy writer, and he wished he could write material like this woman, what's wrong with creating a symbiotic relationship with her? She writes, he curates, he gives her an anonymous voice where she can speak about things that she could not otherwise do in her regular career, they both get paid....is that so bad?
Again, totally playing devil's advocate here. What if she's real, and @kushed is just managing the accounts? Then what? Does that change things?
What if, hypothetically speaking, you or I were that person? @kushed bumped into us at the water cooler, said, "My writing sucks. Yours is great." and then we said, "My writing is great. My curation is nonexistent."
And we combined efforts. Our writing, for his curation.
And WE were the one who got paid?
Would we personally feel like we were gaming the system? I think it's a worthy question.
I think you're misunderstanding the post. I'm not claiming that @kushed wrote any of these posts. The purpose of this was to highlight the fact that these two accounts are being operated by the same person, but pretending to be two different people. They were deceiving readers/curators and being upvoted by the same whales. The data that I presented here was in fact accurate - as both @honeyscribe and @kushed admitted.
Now, the problem isn't that this user is anonymous. I couldn't care less about anonymity. The problem was the deciet and the collusive voting. @kushed knew that these accounts were the same person posting essentially the same type of posts every day, but he (and his friends) were upvoting these posts - knowing that they were the same person. Once it was publicly exposed that these two accounts were the same person and were taking in rewards from the same whales every day, they finally admitted it.
However, they're now claiming that it was a safety issue and that her identity is at risk because of what I did - which is preposterous. There is not one shred of her personal information presented here. The only information that I have about her was information publicly provided by @kushed in RocketChat about her being a professional blogger. There was no "safety" risk from either myself or @bacchist. In fact, the person who informed us about her non-Steemit identity and was questioning her about her identity, and then passing that information along to us, is one of the people commenting on her post in support of her.
I never insisted on verification because it was never the issue at hand. I was looking at links between the multiple sock accounts and the whales upvoting them. They are numerous. This was only one piece of the puzzle. In the coming days, you'll get a more complete picture about who these socks are...and about previous socks that people identified several weeks back. I'm confident that the data collected will paint a pretty clear picture of the culprits, including the ones mentioned in this post and who are now claiming innocence. This was never just about @honeyscribe, @perspective, and @kushed - but they are certainly involved in the deceit and collusion, admittedly.
Got it--the collusive bit I mean. Especially with a duplicative account (@perspective). However, I believe the anonymous claims are real. There was no safety risk with you or @bacchist, but having experienced the paranoia myself of having been stalked and harassed by someone who knows how to infiltrate fine-tuned systems and accounts, I think she had every right to feel concerned about @reneenouveau's knowledge of her and the potential of danger there, even if there was none.
She doesn't know you. That part seems authentic to me. I KNOW most of the puppet accounts have kind of a "dramatic effect" to them. But I think this part of it is real.
I think it was gamed. I think it was collusive. I think it's a raw deal that they came up with @perspective on top of everything else and had them interact with one another. But....I don't know.
I look forward to seeing what else you've got. This is the most excitement I've had on here in awhile!
I really look forward to seeing what else you've got.
there's been a few nefarious whales gaming the system since day 1.
things have improved a little after they started coming under scrutiny.
I think posts like yours are useful so the community can move to neutralize the nefarious whales exactly as the whitepaper had envisioned.
Ned upvoted your post, so your contribution is valued. keep it up
You put a lot of effort into this post. Yes it shows how the reward system can be gamed. I have resteemed.
Amazing Detective skills
Thank you for doing this work! Could someone please get some good A.I detective bots to work on this? If there are any yet.. I´m afraid there will be too much fraud for people to discover without paying them.
AI is easy to fool. Don't let the people yelling about the fear of AIs fool you. AIs are good for specific patterns. They'd work for a bit, and then people would move onto some other technique. If you tried to counter it with AIs you'd likely end up with a lot of innocent people getting flagged improperly by the AI. We just need these great community detectives we already have to keep doing the good job they are. We need to continue to give them our support.
"AI is easy to fool. Don't let the people yelling about the fear of AIs fool you."
This does not seem relevant to anything I said.
Anyway, I would like the bots to spot patterns and connections in data, not do the flagging. The flagging or even banning should be done by the community, once abuse or scamming has been detected. And I´m of course not suggesting that this would be the only method, but it would help.
It only makes sense, if bots are used for scamming, bots should be used to counter it.
Bot's that did like the Cheetah bot and said this MIGHT be plagiarism, or this might be something else would be fine. If they were a tool. Then a human could benefit from the tool. That is useful.
DAMN!
Very interesting. Underhanded and unethical are obvious adjectives. Thank you for posting. Free enterprise would dictate that once these tactics were exposed, the natural consequences would occur.
On a side note, there are accounts out there that really could use a separate accounts say one for photography and one for alt-currencies. How should one go about setting themselves up?
There are many users who already do this. Some of them are very open about it. As I stated previously - there's nothing wrong with having more than one account. The problem with the accounts in question here is the deceit through phony interactions and the collusive aspect of the whales - one of whom was behind the creation of the accounts. There's also the matter of additional accounts tied into these that exhibit the same or similar behavior and are also supported by the same whales. It's the pattern of deceit and collusion that makes these particular accounts problematic, as well as the number of accounts involved and the amount of payouts that are being funneled through them.
Anonymity is acceptable. Multiple accounts are acceptable. But transparency, and trust based on that transparency, will go a long way with other users and curators.
Thank you for your reply. Agree on all points.
How should one go about setting themselves up?
I thank you for writing this the way you did. I am not entirely sure why it was flagged, I felt you did a great job of presenting details as proof of same person, without delving very much into the rights and wrongs of it.
I definitely "feel" your opinions but they don't overpower the details.
Thanks for the thoughtful read
Good researches.... Great job.
ermergerd this is some good detective work. New here, so it's good to know that there's some sort of collusion going on in the ecosystem.
Thank you for this investigative piece of work. I hope that Steemit will take stern actions against people who use sockpuppets.
The @perspective account says their name is Dani, could this also be another witness called @liondani using another account? Just asking.
I haven't seen any evidence of that. The connections that were made here are based on observable data. I don't like to engage in guesswork when it comes to something of this nature.
@liondani doesn't appear to be connected in any way and I would discourage any assumptions like that without real data/evidence to back it up.
@liondani does not even vote any of the accused as witnesses. No she is not involved.
All I see is pennies, how do you get to $75k?
Excellent investigation!
That was a hella-great article!
This is what steemit is all about. Milking as much out of the system as possible while talking about how good it is for content creators to get paid while creating generations of bag holders, its working.
Interesting. Following.
excellent detective work, I for one am glad to have my eyes opened to this
A little late but... !popcorn. I respect what you did here.
Downvoted for witch hunt mentality.
How is showing facts with pictures a witch hunt? Someone can answer or not...