The results of enforcement of 2.5 to 3.5 days deadlines on the huge bidbots

2018-7-23
summary/tldr;
Serial and methodical users of the biggest bidbots are the main sufferers from shortened deadlines of bidbots.

The following are not my opinion, they are facts:

1. The biggest perenial vote buyers are the main victims of grumpy compliance.
   The speed of their reward circulation dropped by 1/2.
2. Smaller vote buyers that use smaller bidbots with generous deadlines therefore benefit on the expense of the rich.
3. Abstainers from vote buying also benefit on a relative basis, including self voters and circle jerkers.
4. Bot owners, including the person or organization that is behind grumpy, lose as well, since a slowdown in rewards circulation means less available cash for them, and less ability for their customers.
5. Passive STEEM holders benefit a little on a relative basis, alas STEEM is a use it or lose it asset, and being passive in STEEM is one of the worst things to do with it.
6. Genuine curators experience mixed results: they benefit a little from the reduced suction of the reward pool, if their rewards compete with author rewards, which I doubt.
   If curation rewards are not affected by author rewards, then they still benefit a little, on a relative basis.
   Most of the most genuine curators are hurt by the shortened time frames during which they can upvote before the bots.
   This is why I mostly avoid using bidding services with artificially shortened bidding opportunities.

Personally I prefer bidbots with extended timeframes, but I acknowledge my conclusions here.
Most bidbots which were not included in grumpy's ultimatum surrendered anyway.