Hi @lexiconical, I am starting to form the opinion that the system is not the most important thing. There will advantages and disadvantages to any changes that are made.
The more important issue is user awareness and understanding.
Also the only vote trading i have seen that is a serious problem is whales holding multiple account and upvoting their own accounts. I don't have a clue about how to use computers, but even i know how prove this !
I think it would be a great idea to stop claiming such and such abuse is going on to hide the real abuses.
The system is the most important thing, when Code is Law.
There is no enforcement body here.
You made a point in our prior discussion I feel I should respond to.
The rules that make such mining possible can also completely eliminate it. It is the extant rules that make rewards pool mining profitable.
Only changing the rules can make Steemit an actual social media platform, and instead they are intended to make mining Steem via pseudo-social interactions with bots profitable.
The white paper says one thing, mere rhetoric, while the actual code, the rules, do something completely different.
I don't waste much effort on hope. I try to attain reasonable expectations instead.
Worst case scenario, Steemit has been a benefit to me, by enabling me to engage with intelligent, sincere folks that care about their neighbors, and it gets cloned, without the initial flashmine that centralizes control.
You either haven't looked at the trending page, or have no idea of how automated voting, such as curation trails work.
Have a deeper look, and I believe your opinion will change.
"In my mind i would prefer that people thought more about what behavior they are supporting rather than focusing on their ROI for each vote."
Do you have an practical means by which to enforce this Utopian view?
The sad truth is, it doesn't matter what we think. There are 39 opinions that matter on Steemit. Those accounts control 93% of the Steem, and thus all the power.
Stinc made the rules so that the market, those 39 accounts, are best served.
Bots are how they profit from their rewards pool.
Regardless of whether we want them or not, until we control the Steem, we will not control the bots.
The witnesses are elected by SP weighted VP, and thus serve completely at the pleasure of those 39 whales.
Steem is increasingly concentrated in the accounts of those that already have the most of it.
This is good, from their perspective, as long as there are enough user accounts to keep the value of Steem from plunging. If an account begins to draw too deeply from their rewards pool, as @haejin recently has, they can fix that, as they did.
It doesn't matter what people think. It matters what people with the power to do something about it think, and there are only 39 of them.
We, sadly, aren't them.
Merry Christmas!
Fascinating. I think you released too much truth bomb here.
These flags stopped suddenly when I expressed my gratitude. No words could have better proved my point =p
Since I don't spend any rewards, I am not harmed financially in the least by flags. They cost VP to cast, so flagging me harms only the flaggot. Every flag on my remarks on this topic, intended to counter my points, clearly proved exactly what I was saying.
I actually laughed pretty damn hard XD
You'll note he was flagged even for the vague mentions. Even telling you the broad strokes is dangerous to one's account.
I've never looked. My information is drawn from @arcange's daily posts on Steemit statistics. He doesn't name names. He makes charts. Here's the one I saw in November, and since then we have gained one whale and ~30 dolphins.
I've heard only the highest praise for Arcange's work, from people I think well of.
This flag is even more fascinating than the last one.