You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How does @Bellyrub work in Detail
What I find frustrating with @booster and @bellyrub is that people have no clue most of the time how to use the service. Usually they throw money into the pool like they play alone. Some even bid more money than the maximum upvote worth. It would be much more fun to say everyone has a maximum limit. Maybe that would make the service more interesting to use on aregular basis.
As much as the bidding process is fascinating as much I prefer the predictability of a @minnowbooster. I will never make a loss of investment there because I know what to expect.
Maybe you can play around with the rules to diversify yourself from @booster and attract more/other/new customers.
The only thing I can think of is posting that booster has more voting power.
I am still working on the max bid. : )
I know there's no incentive for the BidBots authors to do this, but the BidBots could cap the bids per round to some percentage of the upvote value. Anything over this cap and the the bids are stil pro-rata'd out and a pro-rata refund for the amount that went above the cap given. To prevent abuse by a deep pockets bidder throwing a zillion SBD bid knowing they'll be pro-rata returned the rest.... cap each individual bid target to a maximum of (100 / sqrt(number of bidders))% of the upvote power. I said bid target because it'll stop gang-voting by bot armies.
Or even better: Every vote above that limit is going into the pool to show the greedy who is boss.
If it's by bid-target then it should refund since it could be multiple people. But, from a single bidder, yeah, bids way in the sky are gaming it. It might be illegal to seize the funds so maybe refund and suspend/ban the bidder.
Good suggestion. Can easily be programmed.