The ecosystem of Golos has splitted into two new categories of users: the pro-@booster (qualified by some as boosteroman) and those who don’t use it, who don’t know how to use it or who want to fight it.
The goal of this post is not to demonstrate which ones are right or wrong. My aim is to show which effects it has on the whole Golos project. At the end of this post, I will express my personal opinion.
The effect on the reward
This main effect observed when @booster started was a raise of the reward of some posts.
The first thing we see is that the average price for posts (blue line) is skyrocketing. Good news, isn’t it ? The authors get a better payout.
But if you look at the number of posts that get rewarded (orange line), you see a dramatic decrease, meaning there are less and less posts receiving a reward.
One could say this is because there were less posts published. But if you look at my daily stats at the section 3, you will see that the number of posts was quite steady around 1500 posts per day.
Let’s now have a closer look at the median author’s reward value:
What we see it that median payout has fallen down to zero. What does it mean? It means that half of the 1500 daily posts earn less than 0,088 GBG.
Again, one could say “There are at least 750 posts earning more”. OK, let go further in our analysis.
But before, let me ask you a question:
How many users were paying @booster to get upvotes?
On this graph, we can see 2 thing:
- There a a small amount of users (around one hundred) who take profit from the @booster project, while we have approximately 6000 active users and 2000 active authors (source)
- The amount of GBG sent to @booster was raising every days, with an average of 25000 GBG (336.363 rubles) per day. Up to now, @fyrstikken has already pocketed 788.549,252 GBG (13.149.958 rubles)
And now the next question:
What effect have these hundred people on payments?
This graph show how the reward pool is allocated to the different posts published each day.
In orange, we see the part of the reward pool allocated to users who **DO NOT PAY @booster.
Do you get it: on 2017-12-28, only a few users got 85% of the author remuneration pool. It is simply looting !!
The @booster effect: selling dream and making money
@booster is selling dream: all newcomers see a few posts making a lot of money. Of course they believe they can do the same. I guess they try hard.
But, they can surely not compete with the seasoned veterans who have long refined their looting strategy. This is unsustainable on the long term and, with such behavior, I guess we will see, sooner or later, a sharp decline in the number of active users.
Is it good or is it bad?
I will now express my very own personal opinion about @booster and other pay for votes projects.
I have read many post about @booster, some in favor, some against, each time with valid arguments depending on which side you sit. On a pure financial perspective, one can say that @fyrstikken is a smart guy, being good at maximizing his investment.
Of course, I’m also an investors. I invested money in Golos, but also a lot of time,. And I expect some return on investment too. But I am not the want who absolutely want to maximize my return.
I think the current behavior (which I would qualify as kind of corruption, selfishness, greediness) of some users is a short term vision. This economic model is unsustainable on the long term.
I more believe in values like sharing, equity and global growth for the benefit of all.
This is why I initiated several projects like the Travel fund for GolosFest and the Win a ticket to golosFest contest. This was also my aim, one year ago, when I was not yet a whale, but made my first hit-parade contest.
My idea is that I should share part of what I got from the platform with the other to help them to grow and, maybe, they will do the same with others later.
I might be Utopian. But this is my point of view and the values I want to defend.
I did not participate, because I am against the idea of paying to have a favor. I call it corruption (or prostitution) and it's something I'm totally reluctant to do.
I did not fighted any, because I simply had no time to do so and I more believe on the effect of positive actions than negative ones.
This did not prevented me to react in my own way, as I have put all @booster users on a personal “blacklist” and I will no more vote for any of their post. Not as an act of retaliation, but because I do not want to add my support to such behavior.
As these users are often well established authors on the platform, I guess they do not need my vote. The good news is that I will preserve my voting power and have it at hand to support other newcomers and minnows.
A step further
Several people contacted me to join their “crusade” against @booster and I have politely declined the invitation, often with the same argument: wars create anger and desolation.
Anyway, few days ago, the @robingood initiative scaled up, starting to flag posts from users relying on @booster to raise their payment. Some told me I should join the effort and, once again, I declined for the same reasons.
But, surprisingly, I noticed the immediate effect of such action:
A downfall of the average post's reward, meaning more equity among author’s payments.
Effect from @booster on reward pool distribution went down to 0%
I was astonished by how fast the people participating in the @robingood initiative changed the situation, without creating a mega drama, as I expected.
Unfortunately, I also noticed that the “boosteroman” have now shifted to the @whalepunk kickback project. With the same negative effect on the reward pool distribution:
From 65% up to 85% of the payments are allocated to a mere ~50 users who are actively organizing themselves to efficiently loot the reward pool. You can see it here
Therefore, after balancing the pros and cons, I finally decided to add my small contribution to bring more equity to the platform.
Please take note that:
- I am not part of any gang. It is a personal action.
- There is nothing personal against people using kickbacks.
I simply find such projects and participation to these projects unfair and against the principle of sharing wealth. Therefore, I react accordingly to the value I want to defend.
Should any change the way he/she behaves, for sure I would reconsider my action.
It is not what we are or what we think that defines us, but how we act.
I wish you all an happy new year and all the best for 2018
Спасибо за прочтение! Peace!
PS1: As I do not use kickback projects, I guess this post will not earn that much. Given the fact that I pay a translator when I want to publish long post in Russian (and be understood), doing so will be at lost at the moment. That’s why I will published this post in English. Please apologize for those who cannot read English.
PS2: Anyone who never used @booster or @whalepunk is free to publish a translation of this post.