Do you receive those great upvotes too? They are not only given by certain witnesses but also by @ecosynthesizer.
If you check how generous they are you might be surprised. What you receive is zero, nothing, nada! And for people like these, it is you investing your time and write while all they do is taking a part with the help of a bot! That same bot the average Steemian isn't allowed to use. Yes, you do the job for a few with fat wallets, scammers!
Sorry, Steemit Inc. but I have no respect for the fact this is allowed (this account even gives downvotes) while small fish (nearly everyone around here if I see this wallet) will be punished. An explanation is appreciated.
.jpg)
I left this comment. I don't count with an answer since the entire year 2024 it kept quiet.
You have no shame do you @ecosynthesizer?
You don't give only take! Should I even thank you?
I asked more than once to explain why you pretend you give which you don't.
You have a fat wallet and rib of the little ones and only give to a few big fish.
Shame on you for promoting yourself and pretending you are a good person. You might say you are a good and it's all for the project you run but a honest person would ask if people are willing to support and not rob the small ones while supporting the fat wallets!
The only reason why you upvote is because you earn!
-21, the red number, a fat wallet, every small Steemian would be caught for scam so what makes you so special?
For sure you laugh at me and the other idiots falling for your scam. What you achieve is you take a percentage of all those who work hard. Didn't you earn enough since this isn't your only project?
This is scam not more, nothing less.
.png)
3.1.25
Do you have an opinion @dev-pro?
I won't get into the Ecosynthesizer issue, although I can agree with you that automated bots bring a lot of profit for themselves. The problem is that the blockchain was built and released in a certain way, which unfortunately allowed this type of action to be carried out. The large portfolios they have today result from investments made in the past. The limit of all these blockchains is that those who enter first are favored by the possible increase in the value of the token and also by the possibility of earning more with curations. This also applies to auto-upvotes, but that's how things evolved. Some of the most influential witnesses have blogs that are regularly upvoted by automated bots or by themselves, and this leads to an increase in the proportion of tokens they receive over time: this is the limit of blockchain-based blogs of this type.
The teams behind Steemit Blog have created initiatives to favor those who don't use bots, a solution that rewards those you consider to be "correct" users. Everyone can decide whether to behave in this way, receiving the advantages that the steemitblog teams offer, or to launch into votes via bots and give up these rewards. More drastic initiatives, in addition to being difficult to implement, would still be wrong towards those who invested before, including bots that were allowed to grow.
Ps. = I would still like to point out that the small upvotes of bots that generate rewards equal to 0 for the authors, will lead to rewards equal to 0 also for the bot that votes.
I conclude by telling you that the things you noticed about are simply the limit (disadvantageous for the smallest users and for those who will enter in the future) of these platforms.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@ wakeupkitty
♥️🍀
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi Davide,
thanks for stopping by. That the bots and those who set them up have the most profit from it is clear. If setting botto.steem for example you can not choose when to give the upvote and it will always be after 5+ minutes and next you are the last in the row but...
This questionable way of upvoting and misleading Steemians is not what I want to talk about. What bothers me is the fact that they pretend they give an upvote but only promote their name and you know just like me how many will be flattered, never check, say thank you, have no clue how or what and give an upvote back.
Is the wallet really the result of what is earned years ago? If I look at the curation reward (curation?) per day I have very strong doubts about it. I read a comment by @jeff-kubitz and it's good to know that I am not the only idiot on this platform.
I would say to all those abusing the system: upvote and keep your mouth shut. Why the announcement? How hypocritical can one be (and this is the same for the witnesses pretending they upvote but give 0).
By the way, it's not quite as you say... I noticed that an account with 0 (VP 100%) still can give 1 cent if they vote for the right posts on day 6 for example) and I also noticed that at times you believe you upvote (give) and the reward decreases (because?). If it comes to rewards (given) there's a huge grey field and it feels to me that the average Steemian is used in different ways.
What are the teams behind Steemit Blog? Community Administrators? Are and will be all correct users be rewarded and in which way, because I never see an upvote for what I write in my communities and what counts for me counts for many others.
I try to understand what you mean by this
Can you put it down in other words so I can perhaps understand it because it sounds that indeed everyone after the hard fork is punished (actually already before) as bots were suddenly forbidden. What I don't understand is why what is forbidden for "everyone" is done in the open by the top and if it comes to this account every steemian is confronted with it.
I assume if you commit a scam in the open it's okay.
A great evening, it's time to cook.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Being prohibited is relative, in the sense that:
When you want to use bots, they aren't prohibited, but you have to give up to join communities and initiatives that prohibit their use, because their rules are those.
In addition to this, there is still a negative side which is: on blockchain-based platforms such as Steem or Hive, downvoting exists. I abandoned Hive because I went against the rules of the "police" that forced me to publish a translated post of mine, giving up all the rewards. On these platforms, anyone who wants to downvote you can do so because the platform allows it, and there is the possibility that if you are unpleasant to someone (with or without reasons), it can target you.
The other "wrong" side of the platform was the one you were talking about and that I tried to "develop" in my speech was that of the rewards, that will bring a greater gain to the biggest: not for the increase in value of the Steem token itself, but for the increasingly larger amount of tokens that will be theirs in the distribution of rewards every time they perform a curation. The solution can only be found by those who create the algorithms that regulate the allocation of tokens, because it would be necessary to act on the algorithm: unfortunately, it isn't certain that these changes are possible, but I am not an expert developer who can give these judgments.
The one I talked about is the general tendency of the algorithm; which, considering the data I collected in the past, is the one I described.
However, there are variations contemplated within the algorithm, but I couldn't read the programming language and define them all. I can tell you, for example, that many developers talked about a time window (the first few minutes after a post is published) in which voters receive a higher percentage of reward for having voted.
Example: if the vote of a user X has a value of 0.002, he should have 0.001 in reward for himself and give 0.001 in reward for the author of the post. If that post receives more votes, user X will get a higher reward, in my experience about 3 or 4 times as much (in this case, he would receive for example 0.003-0.004)
I don't know which specific rules the algorithm follows, but I can guarantee that I received a bigger curation many times, when I voted in the first minutes. I don't know if it depends on the time window or other reasons (for example, how big are the rewards that that post would get).
I share many parts of your thoughts, but unfortunately this is what the platform is, with all its strengths and defects.
I hope I have given you some answers. Greetings and a good week!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Greetings,@hive-152479
You mentioned me, I read your post.I can't give my opinion right now, but I have started the research.It will take me some time and I will reply you fully after doing complete research.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit