Data is king, so is the interpretation? // 数据为王,但对数据的理解未必正确,对某些臆测的回应!


@ned has recently undelegated the SP from a couple of Steemians including me. Some curious Steemians analyzed the data and try to reveal something. I do agree that data is king (if the data is right), while the conclusions from people’s interpretation are not always the king.

To avoid some people’s potential abuse of freedom of speech due to the lack of enough background information, I would like to clarify some points from my point of view.

  1. @ned did not contact me at all, neither before the delegation nor after the withdrawal of delegation. I do know the reason of this delegation is that he was carrying out the delegation experiment to see what would happen from the delegation. The centralization of Steem power is a challenge for Steem as you may be aware. Now the experiment of decentralization seems partially finished.
  2. @ned’s main goal was to see how the delegation would help the CN and HK Steem community. That is why five of the delegatees are Chinese. That is also why I spend most of my time on helping the CN and HK Steemians (actually Chinese posts), but I did spent a bit time on English posts from all over the world (I was also trying to help African Steemians).
  3. A lot of STEEM I got in September is from the money I invested (around 50000 CNY, 7000 USD equivalent). I bought 5959.59 STEEM from exchange, showing my faith on Steem blockchain. I have not cashed out any fiat money from Steem yet, though it is completely up to me.
  4. I did help some Steemians to cash out SBD/STEEM, which is why I received some SBD/STEEM from them. It is not a secret at all if you have read my Chinese posts.
  5. Just like I invested in Steem, I have also been writing quality posts mostly in Chinese everyday. And I comment people’s posts as well as promote Steem, and give them suggestions. I upvote my posts as well as other people’s. Maybe some best quality posts did not always get well paid, but I try to avoid low-quality posts getting well paid. I am not a machine.
  6. Self-voting is not wrong, as the system allows self-voting, especially when your posts are better than others’. As the SP was delegated from @ned rather than mine own, I always check how high my self-voting rate is, which was fortunately always lower than 10% during the delegation period. This rate is far lower than that of a lot of popular Steemians.
  7. Upvoting takes long time, and it is hard work. Even if each upvote takes ONLY 30 seconds, upvoting 1327 times a day means at least needing 11.05 hours (UPDATE 1 & UPDATE 2: the data 1327 upvotes daily of one delegatee calculated by @paulag is totally wrong). Do you think a single human being can read each post within 30 seconds? and works for Steemit 11 hours everyday without the help of robots (or other human beings)? I cannot. I try to read MOST of the posts I upvote and ask no help from robots/other people. The curation is making outstanding posts stand out.
  8. Memos of transactions showing the links asking for upvotes does not necessarily prove the curators are selling upvotes. I also received these annoying transactions, I just simply ignore them since I cannot stop people doing it. I personally do not believe that @sweetsssj would think the upvoting selling is worth her reputation. Sure, I may be wrong.
  9. @justyy has been running a “bank” to borrow SP from Steemians to help CN minnows, that is why @htliao delegated his own 500 SP to @justyy as an attitude to support minnows. What is the problem?
  10. It is absolutely good to find a very trustable person to wisely upvote Steemians with the huge SP delegation. I show my great respect to these kind of people. But a decentralized Steem blockchain should not necessarily rely on GOOD curators. In terms of human nature, MOST of us are essentially the same. At least for me, I am not a person without any selfishness. The answer should be improving the algorithm and system rules of Steem.

I appreciate @ned giving us the chance and trust to contribute to Steem community, and thank you guys paying attention to us (If @ned read this post, you are not necessary to respond, since you have many more exciting work to do).

Money talks, but as a 10 years old blogger, I still love blogging even there is no money, not to mention now happily embrace blockchain while blogging, as I am a BIG fan of bitcoin for more than 4 years.

Steem on.

Image via

@ned 最近撤消了包括我在内一些人的SP代理。有些好奇的人试图通过分析数据来揭示一些东西。我同意:数据是王(如果数据是对的话),然而人们对这些数据分析理解所得出的结论不一定总是对。


  1. @ned 从代理SP到撤消代理前后都没有联系过我。但我确实知道他通过代理SP在进行一项试验,想看看会有什么结果。你也许知道,Steem的SP中心化对Steem是一个挑战。现在这个试验看起来部分结束了。
  2. @ned 的目的是想通过这些代理SP来帮助CN和HK社区的Steemit用户们。这就是为什么7位被代理人中有五位是华人。也是为什么我花了大量的精力来帮助中文区(主要是中文文章)。不过我也确实花了一点精力给全世界的英文文章(我甚至试图帮助非洲的Steemit用户)。
  3. 我9月份得到的大量Steem币是因我自己投资,我投资了5万元人民币(合7000美元)从BITTREX交易所购买了5959.59个Steem,表达我看好Steem区块链的态度和信心。到目前为止,我还没有将我的Steem提现成任何法币,虽然这完全是我的自由。
  4. 我确实帮助一些Steemit好友提现他们的Steem和SBD,这也是为什么我会收到他们的SBD/Steem。如果你读过我的中文文章,这根本就不是秘密。
  5. 正如我投资Steem,我也几乎每日在Steemit上撰写优质文章。我评论人们的文章给人们建议,宣传推销Steem。我在点赞别人文章时,也同样点赞自己的文章。也许有些优质文章没有得到应有的点赞回报,但我极力避免烂文章得到最好的回报,我不是机器人。
  6. 自我点赞不是错,因为系统允许这样做,尤其是你自己的文章比别人的好的时候。由于SP是被人代理而不是我自己的,我总是检查我的自我投票比率,幸运的是,这个比率在代理期间总是低于10%,远远低于大部分热门Steemit作者的自我点赞投票率。
  7. 点赞需要花费很长时间,是一件苦差事。哪怕每个点赞只花费30秒,每天点赞1327次点赞需耗费11.05小时(更新1 & 更新2:@paulag算出来的1327次日点赞量数据完全错误)。你觉得一个自然人能在30秒内读完一篇文章?并且每天不借助别人或者机器人的帮忙为Steem工作11.05小时?我不能。我对点赞的大部分文章都试图阅读欣赏,也从不借助别人和机器人的帮助。点赞的意义就是要让优秀文章得到好的回报。
  8. Steem转账中附言里有文章链接求赞,并不定证明收款人在贩卖点赞权。我也收到过这样的烦人转账求赞。我无法阻止这样的行为,那我就很简单地忽视他们。我个人不太相信 @sweetsssj 会不考虑她那么高的声望值卖点赞权。当然,在这一点上我有可能是错的。
  9. @justyy 一直在运行一个“SP银行”,从别人那里借SP来帮助Steemit上的小鱼们。这是为什么 @htliao 会代理500 SP给 @justyy,作为支持小鱼们的姿态。这有什么错?
  10. 能找到一个德高望重的“好人”利用海量代理SP行使点赞权,当然是件好事。我对这种人表示极大的敬佩。但是,一个去中心化的区块链应用,不应该寄希望于“好人”去行使点赞权。就人性而言,大部分人都差不多。至少于我来说,我不是一个完全没有私心的人。答案应该是改善Steem的算法和系统规则。

我很感谢 @ned 对我们的信任和给予的机会,让我们能为Steem贡献自己的力量。也感谢大家对我们的关注与支持。(如果 @ned 有幸看到本文,你完全不必回应,你还有更多重要的事情去做)。



Share the post to: Facebook | Twitter | Google+ | 微博 | 更多…





电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注