No, that is not a good equivalent. When you hire an ad agency you are using your money to promote, with bots you are doing that as well, but also contributing to a bot becoming larger and larger and funneling and draining the reward pool into the future. The reward pool is shared by everyone on steem, so if we all send 25% of our daily rewards to a certain group of bots, in exchange for their whale vote, we are draining the pool, and concentrating wealth in the hands of the bots, and also normalizing this type of promotion when really there doesnt NEED to be any promotion at all, just good content, comments, and networking. I agree with what you said about content, but you are not realizing that bots are putting a spotlight on not GOOD content creators, just RICH content creators. Like I said -what is stopping a future of steem where someone pays $50K to promote a selfie.. at this rate nothing. And, in my opinion, this is the single greatest threat to the future of steem. Who will adopt a platform like this?
RE: Thinking about tomorrow, today. Reinvest and Power-Up!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thinking about tomorrow, today. Reinvest and Power-Up!
So in trying to argue against the comparison of a bot as an ad agency, you argue that it actually is? Huh?
Yes. Just like an ad agency, the bot grows to accommodate more clients. Funny how that works. It grows and grows. I get that the reward pool is finite, but really bots are supplementing an already broken promotional system.
Besides, it's not the bots that are actually being abusive. It's the users. Even without bots, the users would find a way to game the system and abuse the reward pool.
That is a fallacy. There is always need for promotion. There is a finite reward pool which means there is fierce competition for those rewards. Those with the STEEM power tend to be the ones getting all the rewards. I'd rather they be bots that want me to bid for their vote to promote my content than wasting it on self-voting for useless content.
Another fallacy. People that invest their own money to make their content visible are not RICH. They're savvy. Marketing is a necessity and an investment. Some of us have to use our hard earned local currency and convert it to STEEM to pay for this. Money they work hard for.
Now this is all based-on the concept that there is only an upvote. There are downvotes. Downvotes are tools for curators to correct the payout of content to acceptable levels.
This is where @grumpycat becomes an a real issue. @grumpycat indiscriminately punishes content creators trying to attack the bot. As I said before, you can't blame the feature for the abuser. Further, not all content creators are abusers. Some are just trying to do the converse which is get their content noticed and raised payouts to appropriate levels. @grumpycat tries to wipeout payouts which is why there is conflict. If @grumpycat were any normal user that said
That's far from reality and that is what will help the platform. So far EVERYTHING you have said is what IMHO will be a threat to the platform. Who will adopt a platform that isn't for everyone?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So a 'savvy' user from the third world should be'savvy' enough to put 6 months pay into promoting a blog? The use of bots is growing exponentially, and somehow if you think focusing wealth into these services is healthy for steem and makes it appealing to the average social media user, well - we just aren't going to agree on that. @grumpycat is striking fear into the hearts of the users trying to game the system, knowing that they could lose their ROI with one flag. Unfortunately, when greed is rampant, it is only consequences like these that can cause change.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Might interest you
The community is pretty sure @grumpycat is not the user's only account. There is a network perhaps a guild of accounts. It's all just round-robin upvoting and reward pool abuse. They like to refer to it as SBD correction. I'm sure you can do your own research on this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am glad someone else here saw that. I didn't want to start a whole thread based on @grumpycats 'hidden account' that he upvotes as 'sbd correction', or 'placeholder'/
So, speaking of stealing from the rewards pool... He likes to make an example out of someone making $100-$200 on a bidbot, when with that money they generally reinvest via powering up. Or they use it to boost their future blogs. At least the funds tend to stay on the platform.
Meanwhile, with his 3 million dollar account, he powers down and rapes the pool by hidden selfvoting.
Meh.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit