I wrote a piece about a concerning aspect of the Steem Price and steemit.com the other day. It demonstrated, via steemit data, that there was a case of abuse of privilege to be investigated. Of course, that is up to each person to decide.
Today that post was down-voted to zero by @matt-a - I did not know of @matt-a until yesterday. He posted a very self-congratulatory post about powering-up 81,000 steem.
I checked into his account and found this: "2 hours ago Start power down of 99,305.578 STEEM"
So, I responded:
What the:
2 hours ago Start power down of 99,305.578 STEEM
@matt-a claims that this is how the account is always managed and has been since the beginning. The account was opened in July 2016 and then became dormant for 7 months until the HF changes allowed a proliferation of accounts and encouraged the delegation of SP to demonstrate `"decentralisation".
@matt-a is playing within the rules to very quickly increase the reputation of this account. He is then free to raise the rep of another several accounts to maximise the leveraged benefits he has. Maximising one's return is quite natural, though the permissions to behave so are deplorable.
No problem there is there, Steemit Inc.?
But why abuse the leverage and stake-weight you have to try to intimidate those who have less?
Maybe, @matt-a, you feel that the possibility that there is a case of price manipulation and insider trading warrants no scrutiny?
The presence of three times the views over votes should raise anybody's eyebrows.
With absolutely no apology at all, you simply call for people like me to scrutinise further.
You fit this category very well: yellow-backed flake.
Follow @ebryans for Content:
