Or at least more work required on the auditing side of things for Account-based voting....
Today I planned to have a look at @theycallmedan's current Poll in which one lucky community will receive 10,000 delegated Steem Power for a whole year.
I was thinking of pulling some alternative metrics, such as:
- What if the votes were stake-weighted (totaling the Owned Steem Power of the voters)
- Subtracting votes from accounts without a post
- Subtracting votes from accounts < 40 rep
- And, perhaps most controversially, subtracting votes from accounts that were created after the start of the Poll
Of course, none of these findings were to in any way alter the final vote counts - it was more for personal interest than anything else.
And so I made my SQL query and gave it a whirl. Damn JSON, he can be a right pain:
select
IIF(isjson(json_metadata) = 1, IIF(CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]')) > 0, SUBSTRING(json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]'), 1, CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]'))-1),json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]')), null) as [Voted],
count(*)
from comments where parent_permlink = 'which-steem-project-should-i-delegate-10k-steempower-to-for-1-year' and depth = 1
and IIF(isjson(json_metadata) = 1, IIF(CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.app')) > 0, SUBSTRING(json_value(json_metadata, '$.app'), 1, CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.app'))-1),json_value(json_metadata, '$.app')), null) = 'dpoll'
group by
IIF(isjson(json_metadata) = 1, IIF(CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]')) > 0, SUBSTRING(json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]'), 1, CHARINDEX('/', json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]'))-1),json_value(json_metadata, '$.votes[0]')), null)
order by count(*) desc
The above gave me the following output:
Scanning the numbers, something didn't look right. @votovzla, 3 out, @steemitbloggers, 2 out, and @team-cn, 58 out out when compared to the screenshot at the top of the post.
And so I simplified the query and ignored looking for the exact JSON. This included the rest of the comments on Dan's post, but the numbers were still way off.
And so I phoned a friend who can pull the same data directly from the chain. The screenshot below is an hour or so behind the ones above, but you get the idea - still a pretty sizable discrepancy:
So what could it be?
The number of entries on the chain, particularly for the @team-cn vote, do not match the count on @dpoll.curation.
Deleted Comments.
The following accounts voted on Dan's Poll, and then deleted their comment on the post.
'public-advocate', 'prominent', 'ninedragons', 'vote4u', 'dragon-blade', 'al-amanah', 'mk111', 'worldclub', 'the-excavator', 'woodside', 'quarantine', 'dolphin-power9', 'sukhoi-su', 'simpanan', 'dolphin-power10', 'dolphinp', 'coonawarra', 'whalepower', 'storm-shadow', 'sky-bolt', 'l00', 'the-exocet', 'seawise-giant', 'ballarat', 'freeservice', 'whalepower-guide', 'balancepower', 'tenaga-satu', 'the-reef', 'sbd4vot', 'dolphin-power3', 'steem4vote', 'meko200', 'paul-gillbanks', 'pterosaur', 'bullionstackers', 'globalex', 'c-solstice', 'ppagoda', 'word-of-the-day', 'point-blank', 'v-1', 'dolphin-power6', 'helios', 'applex', 'shenyang-j', 'timeblock', 'bagger293', 'tanaman', 'surion', 'reservoir', 'dolphin-power7', 'cairns', 'author-fund', 'minuteman111', 'dolphin-power8', 'solidgold', 'global-pillar'
Why would you do that then?
And 58 you say? Where have I seen that number before......
I think it would be unwise for me to point fingers right now, particularly before @emrebeyler has done a full audit (which he undertaking at present), and so I'll leave my opinions for later.
Just to be clear. Nothing against @dpoll.curation here, and the great work Emre has been doing for Steem.
We saw the @steemalliance put their votes out to the public for review, likely after suspecting foul play. And the above doesn't look great, does it?
Stake-weighted voting back in the game?
Cheers
Asher