You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Boycotting Bidbots to Save the Reward Pool is a Fruitless Endeavor.
It really depends on how you look at it. If curators get dinged another 25% that 25% might feel like a tax. The thing with Steemit is, that it's just so unnatural, there are either too many real world comparisons, or not enough adequate ones.
I can see it from many different angles at once. How would you feel about an additional 25% removed from potential post rewards? I don't think that it will solve the problem of bots, but rather make them operate in different ways.
People want the bot owners to curate but if they don't want to, I don't know if trying to force them to will actually work.
It's more like an additional 33%, to make curators on equal ground with content creators, so a change from 1:3 ratio to a 1:1 ratio.
The problem of bots won't ever be solved by some people's standard of "solved", but you're willing to say that bot owners will still rape the reward pool because if you think they will find different ways to do it, to reward pool rape, we might as well stop trying to control them? So it's a giant circular motion, a spinning of the wheels by your perspective to do anything like that?
I have to disagree, and say that content creators will still put out content without any financial incentives, if the vote was purely gestural so to speak, as is almost everywhere else.
Oh, I agree that some content creators will still create even without the financial incentives. Yet, some who've been accustomed to a certain amount of rewards. Lets say someone level 74 averages 35.00 sbd per post and makes four posts a day. If suddenly they got allot less because more was allocated to curators and that fix didn't solve the bot problem, they'd probably be unhappy with the results. It could just end up causing more anger among folks on the platform. I guess if they do something with the code, it's in everyone best interest if they do it right the first time even though we're at like HF 20 or whatever now.
And 20 revision are hardly anything in context of software. It's clearly always in trying things out for the best of the platform and right now that means mass adaptation. The problem is greater than bots, and it's about the utter lack of moderation, as long as there's no moderation people will continue to abuse while others sit on their hands reasoning that "the physics allow it" to a moral dilemma. There's one simple way to script you some anti-bot code: add moderation.
That's certainly one Idea, I was chatting with someone about moderation today. It was posited that you cannot have that without centralization. I don't know how I feel about it either way.
I know when YouTube got into the business of moderation, they just ended up doing the worst with it and taking things to extremes.
Tricky terrain I guess, I don't have all the answers but I know that voluntarily, those willing could all help out in risk free ways with temporary cyclical appreciation delegations.