wow i didn't know you were gonna reply! you have some interesting work. some haters too. but you're starting a discussion that should be addressed on a deeper level by the community. and steemic inc too. recently i've seen ned talk about the issue but clearly he doesn't have an answer either (not surprising because nobody does). it's too bad people are too aggressive discussion goes out the window.
Exactly, that is what this bot is all about ... Bringing about discussions on this complex issue. Ned does have the answers, he just does not want to implement them. There are many useful solutions, problem is this gravy train is partially being run by the same people that have to make the decision to put an end to it.
well he's talking about smts and account-based voting and how they can be more democratic. but they're gonna have the exact same problems we have now. he did also mention 'better algorithms' which is just too vague. if you know some solutions that is clearly better but they're just hesitant to implement pls enlighten me because i'm interested 😃
I have very mixed opinions on SMTs and do not believe they will solve this particular problem at all.
One possibility I have envisioned is to cause high SP votes in relation to the current post payout to be shared more with the curators than the author. That is if a high SP (botvote) hits an article with say a current payout of .50 and with an incoming a vote of 25.00, then based on a logarithmic scale, up to 50% would go to the curators, not just 25%
This does not take any large blockchain reviews and is nothing more than simple math. It makes using bots unprofitable. It would not affect normal vote flow and rewards and also highly encourages larger whales to seek out unnoticed work for more curation.
There are MANY possible solutions, just need willing leaders.
it would be profitable for curation bots and people would just shift gears. whales would get even more power than they already have. they don't have to seek unnoticed work. whatever they vote will have more exposure. that's sellable already. basically handing them higher interest rates.
it's a cool idea. but i wonder if a solution to completely stop people from spending money (or other resources) to promote something is a solution at all. i love steemit because there's transparencybots and buildawhalebots. on the same platform!
the fact that you have transparencybots already makes people think twice before using buildawhalebots. i know i did. i weighed the options, and decided to try it. in fact i didn't know about buildawhalebots until i saw a post with a transparencybot comment.
i like that you said you're simply showing the facts. without being too aggressive, you're still leaving the freedom for people to choose. to me that's progress already. and thanks for the explanation.
I do not believe it would be profitable for curation bots as 1/2 of the vote would go to author and 1/2 to the all curators (for large votes), with preference towards the early curators making it very difficult to profit. There would be return but not "profit", thus no vote selling. This eliminates the delegations to bot, as the delegators would no longer be paid any more than they could make directly, curating themselves (auto or not)
It is indeed a diverse platform!
Thanks for the kind words on the method the bot uses. I am not looking to make this a flag war but simply invite a deeper awareness. Glad to hear you are finding this to bee true.
wouldn't whales still be the early curators and everybody follows? (profit)
i can see it would discourage delegation. personally i've always preferred to use a curation bot instead. they are already more profitable imo.
but i see your point. it's definitely a way to decrease promotion by bidbots.
You welcome. Much success.
wow i didn't know you were gonna reply! you have some interesting work. some haters too. but you're starting a discussion that should be addressed on a deeper level by the community. and steemic inc too. recently i've seen ned talk about the issue but clearly he doesn't have an answer either (not surprising because nobody does). it's too bad people are too aggressive discussion goes out the window.
Exactly, that is what this bot is all about ... Bringing about discussions on this complex issue. Ned does have the answers, he just does not want to implement them. There are many useful solutions, problem is this gravy train is partially being run by the same people that have to make the decision to put an end to it.
Thanks for your support!
well he's talking about smts and account-based voting and how they can be more democratic. but they're gonna have the exact same problems we have now. he did also mention 'better algorithms' which is just too vague. if you know some solutions that is clearly better but they're just hesitant to implement pls enlighten me because i'm interested 😃
I have very mixed opinions on SMTs and do not believe they will solve this particular problem at all.
One possibility I have envisioned is to cause high SP votes in relation to the current post payout to be shared more with the curators than the author. That is if a high SP (botvote) hits an article with say a current payout of .50 and with an incoming a vote of 25.00, then based on a logarithmic scale, up to 50% would go to the curators, not just 25%
This does not take any large blockchain reviews and is nothing more than simple math. It makes using bots unprofitable. It would not affect normal vote flow and rewards and also highly encourages larger whales to seek out unnoticed work for more curation.
There are MANY possible solutions, just need willing leaders.
it would be profitable for curation bots and people would just shift gears. whales would get even more power than they already have. they don't have to seek unnoticed work. whatever they vote will have more exposure. that's sellable already. basically handing them higher interest rates.
it's a cool idea. but i wonder if a solution to completely stop people from spending money (or other resources) to promote something is a solution at all. i love steemit because there's transparencybots and buildawhalebots. on the same platform!
the fact that you have transparencybots already makes people think twice before using buildawhalebots. i know i did. i weighed the options, and decided to try it. in fact i didn't know about buildawhalebots until i saw a post with a transparencybot comment.
i like that you said you're simply showing the facts. without being too aggressive, you're still leaving the freedom for people to choose. to me that's progress already. and thanks for the explanation.
Thanks again for the reply.
I do not believe it would be profitable for curation bots as 1/2 of the vote would go to author and 1/2 to the all curators (for large votes), with preference towards the early curators making it very difficult to profit. There would be return but not "profit", thus no vote selling. This eliminates the delegations to bot, as the delegators would no longer be paid any more than they could make directly, curating themselves (auto or not)
It is indeed a diverse platform!
Thanks for the kind words on the method the bot uses. I am not looking to make this a flag war but simply invite a deeper awareness. Glad to hear you are finding this to bee true.
Blessings!
wouldn't whales still be the early curators and everybody follows? (profit)
i can see it would discourage delegation. personally i've always preferred to use a curation bot instead. they are already more profitable imo.
but i see your point. it's definitely a way to decrease promotion by bidbots.