BLIND UPVOTES and BLIND DOWNVOTES (Bidbots and Standards)

in busy •  6 years ago 

image.png

Bidbot usage is way down and that is an okay market correction. I don't hate the bots and I know that many of you do.

Some users and downvoters are targeting blindly the users of the bidbots. Which is making some bidbot owners sad.

My position has always remained the same. Eyes on the site curation is the best method of curation. In some cases where that is not going to happen...

I can't feel a bit sorry for the bot owners and those who are delegating to them. The Owners have been providing Blind upvotes in return for Steem and SBD for 2 years or so. Now they want to complain about Blind Downvotes? Eh, sorry.

In most cases, the owners refused to do much of anything to help clean up the mess. Many, not only wouldn't remove votes but also didn't even bother to use the blacklists. The community begged, asked and yelled for change.

The response was if we didn't like it to downvote it.
Dear Bidbot Owners:

THE CURRENT STATUS IS A MARKET REACTION TO HOW YOU HAVE TREATED THE COMMUNITY.

Now we have a Downvote tools and motivated users looking forward to NewSteem.

I personally like the bidbot model, but feel the owners have earned their own bad reputations. Time for some PR guys.

Some make an excellent case for using Promotion Instead and burning Steem. I think that would be great competition for the bots.

Frankly, though I would prefer the bidbots clean themselves up and remain in the economy!

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHATSUP -- THEY ARE EVIL

Hear me out:

If we move to the burn STEEM model that decreases supply and most would agree that holds some benefits.

I have a better idea!

Let's allow responsible business owners to EARN that Steem while providing a necessary service to the community. Burning doesn't have owners, nor do they need employees.

Despite the fact they have behaved like a bunch of greedy jackasses, the bots do some good things!

They are employing developers and distributing Steem, people and business buying votes provide buy pressure and are only harmful if they are used recklessly.

They are giving large stakeholders a return on investment and that is great.. again if used responsibly

For now the community is actively engaged in downvoting and curating... Thank you all for your NewSteem behavior.

I want our stakeholders to earn! I also want developers to have work. I want a thriving economy with many choices in where and how to promote content. I do not want to see thousands of Steem exit the platform with no value in return.

Bidbots, the ball is in your court.

Here are some related posts

In this post I make a case for how the bidbots (working correctly) are good.


https://steemit.com/busy/@whatsup/we-already-have-a-viable-marketing-ads-platform

In this post @Aggroed talks about the bidbots today:

https://steemit.com/bidbot/@aggroed/well-that-escalated-quickly-hf-21-22-and-bidbots

DRUM ROLL The best NewSteem post I've seen all day! by @fyrstikken owner of @booster

Booster rolls out excellent new bidbot standards! It's a start!

https://steemit.com/booster/@booster/new-quality-standards-for-booster-usage-coming-soon

Let's support those who step up to #NewSteem standards, let's employ good people and create wealth together. That is better than burning STEEM any day of the week.

For those of you who are opposed to ANY promotion at all, well that's a bit too puritan for my point of view. I've seen even those who claim to hate the bots, buy votes when they think they have something important to say, it's kind of funny and ironic.

Thank you to @themarkymark for the things he has done to set some standards... is it enough?

@whatsup

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

How do we currently burn steem?

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

Transfer to @null. If you burn SBD and include the link to the post in the right format (look at the account history for @null to see examples) then that burned amount is used to promote the post on the Promoted tab of steemit.com.

There's also a promote button on steemit.com that can be used, at the bottom right of every post. Currently disabled.

@whatsup,
I think someone might look at this as a good business opportunity to the delegatees of bidbots! Like STEEMHUNT did before and etc. I think community bot programs might get trend again! Yeah with quality contents and with standards!
$trdo

Cheers~

Congratulations @theguruasia, you are successfuly trended the post that shared by @whatsup!
@whatsup got 6 TRDO & @theguruasia got 4 TRDO!

"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"

To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site

Burning doesn't have owners

Oh fuck yes it does. Everyone who owns Steem.

Good point, Indirectly it helps us all. Having a thriving economy also helps us all. I get your point and I'm glad you made it.

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

Let me be clear, I'm not blindly against voting bots or businesses generally, they are great (assuming they act responsibly and in a way that adds value to Steem rather than farming it from Steem, which I think is possible for voting bots, but hardly a given).

But for all the positives that business can do, bear in mind that any Steem transferred to them has a good chance of being sold. Not all will, some want to accumulate more stake, but ultimately many businesses in the crypto space want to earn fiat profits, or distribute profits to other cryptos. (And I don't think that's bad either, it's just a reality).

Now consider the @null account. It is the ultimate HODLer. Any Steem sent there will NOT be sold. Ever.

Burning is not the solution to every problem certainly but it is very powerful and when used appropriately can be a huge positive.

Again, it is an excellent rebuttal and food for thought. I would like to see both!

Me too!

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

In most cases, the owners refused to do much of anything to help clean up the mess. Many, not only wouldn't remove votes but also didn't even bother to use the blacklists. The community begged, asked and yelled for change.

Yet, only a few operators (who knew the 50/50 split were coming) prepared for this well. The fact that I perceive this all as "reactionary" instead of proactive makes me feel better holding my Steem in my own hands and delegating to things where I personally know the stakeholders involved.

The following remarks are musings of a general nature:

With the Steem Proposal system in full effect as well, it is even more important to know what you're doing with your own Steem power. If you see a proposal get up that you don't want to support, then don't delegate SP to people who support those proposals.

Steem got a lot more complicated econimically, but I am already seeing the impact on the trending page. My down vote is doing my part, and I don't see it as a down vote, I see it as a way of rewarding every other author but the one I'm down voting.

Others need to see it that way as well. It isn't an attack on that individual author or article, it is a gift to the rest of the chain.

So much here to agree with.

Yes, NewSteem just being lazy and expecting Steem to hold value is over. It's time to own the responsibility for what our Steem is supporting

SPS doesn't use delegations. The actual SP holder's vote is what counts for SPS (and witness voting).

I believe SPS may use the witness proxy setting, but I'm not positive.

If you're delegating SP to someone, then you're:

(Please correct me if I'm wrong)

  1. Endorsing their witness selection (whether that's by proxy or not)
  2. By extension, via that proxy, endorsing their votes via the SPS
  3. Endorsing any use of their downvotes

There's the argument for the truly "passive" investor who only cares about "Setting and forgetting", but people should really think about the complete consequences of their actions.

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

No, delegation only applies to content voting and RCs. It does not apply to witness votes or SPS.

If you want to set and forget, you need to both delegate and set a witness voting proxy.

Interesting, thank you.

This doesn't change the way I personally use my stake.

Increasing standards for bid bots is great news, and just like I thought could happen :)

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

I will use bid bots if required, and fyrstikkens booster would probably be it. Not really sure who the owners of the other ones are.

edit: meant fyrstikken is the only bot owner i have seen (on video)

The Owners have been providing Blind upvotes in return for Steem and SBD for 2 years or so. Now they want to complain about Blind Downvotes? Eh, sorry

...after two days.

Yeah, I agree things haven't balanced back out yet. It's food for thoughr

Nice. Concrete evidence that post promotion through bid bots add 0 demand for STEEM since it is not used unless fully subsidized by the reward pool and users reimburced! Free markets win :).

What puzzles me the most is how few of the "sad" bid bot runners are instead looking to do something else. Like build a curation project focused on a topic they would really love to see grow on Steem. The differences in returns with EIP compared to bidbots is not that big. Helping grow a whole new userbase would still allow you to pay back delegators and do something to grow the userbase in order to make future promotion actually attractive.

I'm not going to get stuck anymore discussing whether or not "responsible" use of bidbots is "good or bad". The bottom line is that there are so many better ways to use SP to drive Steem forward and make it more attractive. So let's build that instead.

Helping grow a whole new userbase would still allow you to pay back delegators and do something to grow the userbase in order to make future promotion actually attractive.

If you're a huge fan of Photographs of one very specific thing, and you create a curation community around that particular thing, then the reward is in seeing lots of photographs of that one very specific thing.

The same way in which patrons pay artists for their work, or a commission.

Or, the way in which all those people buying merchandise for a particular brand, sporting team, or other thing, allow there to be a proliferation of that brand, sporting team, or other thing to do more things.

And you start off your comment with a baseless and unprovable theory.

The stakeholders actually provide the inflation as I am sure you are well aware.

We shouldn't call it the reward pool.
Maybe the stakeholder funded inflation pool would be a better term or it.

I no longer refer to it as a reward pool. It is an inflation pool.

  ·  6 years ago (edited)

I don't think his comment was baseless. The basis for it is seeing that vote buys are way down once some of the rewards are removed. That does indeed suggest that the actual demand (apart from wanting to get all or most of your purchase back from rewards) is pretty low (he did write "0 demand" which is hyperbole at best, and indeed baseless if not).

Again, though, I will say that it is too early to rush to conclusions. We'll need to see how the market plays out over coming months.

(he did write "0 demand" which is hyperbole at best, and indeed baseless if not).

insignificant relative to the demand for "free" profit (that was the main driver previously) would have been more accurate.

Exactly what I was saying a month or so ago to resident "hf 21 is stoopid" @lordbutterfly. Promotion was the excuse to extract rewards.

What puzzles me the most is how few of the "sad" bid bot runners are instead looking to do something else

It has been a few days. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

I know, it's just that the whole focus of the debates I see taking place is all about how to keep things as they are. Rather than to a step back with the full picture in mind to see what would be the best things to build when considering individual returns + added value to Steem.

Good post

Posted using Partiko Android

Comments were hidden due to low ratings.