A path toward proper distributions on Steem

It’s no secret, Steem has a problem with the distributions. From the epic flag wars between @haejin and @berniesanders to self voting accounts who give themselves thousands for simple comments; with Steemit’s CEO, @ned, being the latest culprit, giving himself a $2,000+ upvote for a 3 word comment squabble with @dan (as of this writing, he has taken it's value back to $0 and has explained his intent, kudos to you @ned for clearing that up, at least somewhat). The controversies seem to be growing, but the broader Steem community is stepping up and putting their collective minds together to find solutions. This is a sign of a healthy thriving community concerned with Steem's future, not just their own. I'd like to add a few of my ideas to the distribution conversation that, if implemented, may finally allow us to move forward.

Early rules of inflation and interest gave the the first adopters a ludicrously unfair advantage and they were able to rack in millions of Steem for comparatively little effort or investment. They now control the vast lion’s share of the distribution power and many have taken advantage of this with “in voting” (upvoting only a few select authors) and self voting. It has gotten to a point where I believe it will devalue all of our investments and make success on this platform an impossible feat. This must be remedied, and it can be with a few simple modifications to the rules.

Upvotes should have a maximum limit.

There is no need for anyone to get a $2,000 upvote from a single user, let alone themselves. The max upvote should be limited to $100 (or whatever the Steem equivalent is) which would keep self voting abuse from disgraceful ranges and force a wider distribution from whales. It’s easy to do this by simply limiting max voting strength to the percentage that would give the max allowable upvote. So if 10% voting strength gave a $100 upvote, the user could never upvote above 10%. No gimmicks, convoluted schemes, flag wars, or class wars necessary.

Replies should have an even smaller limit. There is no circumstance where a comment deserves more than a $10 upvote. None, it’s inconceivable how someone can give themselves a $100, let alone $2,000, upvote for a comment.

This will incentivize whales to delegate some of their SP instead of using it on self voting, or encourage them to spread their votes around properly.

This is not a complex solution, it does not force anyone to distribute their votes, it does not force redistribution of wealth, it does not force burning of wealth, it does not unfairly reward users with universal air drops. But it keeps the abuse in check and encourages better distributions now and in the future. It sends a message to investors and the Steem community that the platform wants all to succeed.

Photo by Erin Cho on Unsplash