You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: That de-escalated Sweetsss-ly
I think you have a personal angst and that is fine if a bit weak.
Moving on.
We all know that delegating to bidbots is proxy self-voting for ROI. Are OCDB and other bid bots going to stand the moral high ground - blacklisting etc. and pretend as if the large majority of active SP in the hands of bid bots is fine?
If you're going to be pedantic, then at-least be consistent with your moral standpoint. You are participating in equivocal behaviour whether you know it or not by seeking above par (and most importantly non-proof-of-brain (for which the system was intended)) returns by delegating your stake to bidbots.
Nice to see you again after 23 days of no comments. Considering you post every day thereabouts and you actually get a couple commentators that very rarely get a reply, it says something. From what I can see, you are the only real content producer from that group and, you are actually a decent writer.
these 5 accounts posted 8 minutes apart:
Then a day earlier these ones 13 minutes apart.
You are very likely smart enough, what are the chances 2 days in a row? Not only that, the accounts aren't all the same out of the group of 5 but, 7 are represented.
1.amylee
2.maysun
3.sherrychan
4.helgachen
5.thecatfiles
6.angelatang
7.fergi
The only one missing is you.
Your posts are consistently out of sync with the other 7. Not "family"? You are the outlier from the 8 and I noticed that @ocdb chose to downvote less on you for some reason.
On a side note, @ocdb has a whitelist only with 3000+ names that have been manually curated for over two years of searching for content producers who proved that they could write at least one decent post. Most of them newcomers with low rep.
I have no angst, but this circle (there were more in it before posting nonsense) has taken out how much over the last 1.5 years? Should I get someone to do the math? And after sweetsssj was caught selling votes via memo with a delegation from @ned meant to aid community distribution, I think it is time that there was a little bit more input from that Steem Power and a little less extraction.
Let's cut to the chase.
You delegate to a profit centred enterprise where Proof of Brain is not enacted by each of the members of the collection of the stakeholders for which the enterprise enacts power on their behalf. Despite this, the "investors" receive passive return for not participating in any side of the Proof of Brain mechanism. This is not how Steem is intended to work.
The system was designed such that curation is absolutely integral to the end goal of finding what is valuable, and what is not. If you delegate to a bot and subsequently "extract" a return higher than what manual curation would yield, then the idea of value contribution (both from a curators perspective and a creators perspective) is effectively null.
It matters that you care about community aid, but your actions do not represent that.
You consistently appeal to ad-hominem (yes, a person's behaviour on the blockchain counts), while offering no rebuttal on your own morally fickle behaviour. You can disguise it in a plethora of ways but at the end of the day, you are contributing to the same result as the people you voice concern over.
Don't be a hypocrite. Sssj had power delegated to her with no rules attached. She never advertised a deal or any agreement to vote for those who sent memos. If anything, she enacted proof of brain and voted on the posts manually. The memos bid on her attention and she gave attention to the highest bidder. If you believe bid bots do any bit of good on this platform (clearly you do as the majority of your stake is delegated to one), then you wouldn't take that opportunistic stance to make unsubstantiated (and hypocritical) claims about how she ran her bid bot.
I agree which is why, I wrote in the post above:
But, due to the last 2.5 years on the platform where this was not happening and due to those who benefited heavily from the start but chose not to distribute, the goal is not here yet and without change, it will never be within reach. This is change.
It is a question of resource allocation. Do I let those who pillage take the Steem for themselves in ever increasingly powerful circles or for extraction, or do I play the long game? After a long time publicly and loudly expressing my views against bidbots, I chose to help develop one that is a steppingstone to something better. Whitelisted and filled with creatives, non-profit so it can maximize returns to both buyers and delegators and, one that is still looking toward a maximization through content and curation. And, I have openly talked of my involvement in all of this many times and in many ways.
So, while you may not agree with what I do, my investment into the community is consistently going up.
The results are far from in, but since I have spent a great deal of time over the last 2 years advocating for more randomization of outcome, things are finally moving in that direction. The vote stability that you and your circle have been living with for however long is hopefully coming to an end and then, you like most other people will have to compete for attention and attract actual support.
As you stated:
I agree, character matters a great deal and I think that since the vast majority of my Steem earnings are community derived, my character on this blockchain and similarly in real life stays solid. I do not run and I understand there are consequences to my actions, just as there are consequences to the actions of others.
和聪明人说话应该简单一些，我们打开天窗说亮话
@honeybee, @sweetsssj You're right
Vote selling is economically equivalent to self voting/circle jerking etc. Fully self voting takes 100% of the voting rewards and puts it in the stakeholders pocket. Vote selling takes 100% of the voting rewards and distributes it between the between the stakeholder, bid bot owner and vote buyer, the latter 2 arguably even less deserving than the stakeholder. Vote selling arguably does my damage as it messes with trending in the process of siphoning money out the back door, the others are just the latter.
OCDB happens to be ran at 0 profit (including curation I think), so the owners don't get anything from it. But you're also right that it does just as much harm to the system irrespective of it's altruism. We all pay the price when OCDB kicks up 1400-2200 Steem a day to freedom, regardless of whether it takes a cut. It all contributes to content indifferent voting that undermines proof of brain.
And I'm sure you're also smart enough to know that blacklists/whitelists don't do shit. Either they're just empty virtue signalling and don't increase standards at all, or they actually increase standards and lose business to other voting bots with lower standards.
Pre HF21 when curation was 25%, curve was linear and there were no free downvotes, fighting against this was futile. Why would I or anyone spend voting mana downvoting abusers when it just meant the majority of the money reclaimed into the pool will go to other abusers? The only rational move other than selling the investment entirely is to join in on the abuse. And the common knowledge of this prevented the system from self correcting. To put it bluntly, the economic incentives pre HF21 were fucking retarded. And sticking to them for over 2 years was doubly retarded.
But here's the thing:
With curation bumped up to 50%, 25% free downvotes and the slightly superlinear curve, things are very different. Sure 50% is not as high as 100%, but with all the downvotes floating around that will disproportionally target abuse, as well as middle men needing a cut too, there's not that much wiggle room for this kind of abuse anymore. Hiding your votes is also more difficult because if they're too small you just get taxed by the curve. It's been less than a week and bid bots are really feeling the pinch. Some of the biggest ones are packing up shop and pivoting to curation https://steemit.com/smartsteem/@smartsteem/new-feature-request-a-curation-review-by-burning-steem-and-sbd. They're also using their downvotes to fight abuse, similar to OCDB (who have told me they're not going to be doing this bid bot shit for much longer either)
Similarly a lot of self voters like me who felt they had no choice back then have recognized that it's no longer futile against abuse and have turned to 100% honest curation and using every bit of free downvote power we can to put a stop to content indifferent voting behavior (circle jerks, vote sellers etc).
We would like your help. I would like your help. For the first time in Steem's history we have a sensible (but admittedly crude and can easily be improved) set of economic incentives that doesn't punish honest curators the most. If we win, we can implement a largely honest curation norm on here where most people settle for 50% curation rewards and keep each other in check from stepping out of line and being greedy.
Have a look around you and see which way the wind is blowing. OCDB is already up your ass, you can try to hide in other voting circles, sell your votes, or you can step up and join me and fight for the integrity of the platform. 50% returns is pretty nice, more if you curate well. No drama, no hassle, just a very fun empowering feeling curating for what's deserving and fucking over what's not.
朋友，和我并肩作战吧！I could really use your help
I have been the recipient of down votes because as you know, proof of brain does not cross the mind of people who support content indifferent schemes and now it is clear, it works both ways - voting as well as down voting.
I do not speak on behalf of anyone but myself and I simply point out the hypocrisy of selling votes, undermining proof of brain and then using delegate power to content indifferent down vote.
I support proof of brain and 100% honest duration. I do not support those who cower behind charitable schemes who clearly do benefit from running bid bots. A cursory look at the op, ocdb, acidyo and a few others will show there is pretty much a voting circle happening there too.
If we are to implement 100% curation, then I cannot support anyone who participates in as you say content indifferent voting. If we want to fight this together, then a consistent line of logic must be followed, no exceptions.
Those who delegate to bid bots and rent seek should not receieve honest curation. Same goes for anyone who runs a bid bot.
I will contact you to speak about this privately if you let me know how to contact you.
I agree with pretty much everything you say
Even if a bid bot operator does not take any fee, he is still contributing to 100% content indifferent voting behavior. All that money is then extracted from the system and passed onto the sellers. The damage is the same whether the intermediary takes a cut or not.
Now it use to be pre HF21 that stakeholders would only make a quarter as much curating honestly as they would abusing (vote selling, circle jerking, self voting etc). No surprise pretty much all active stake ended up doing it and completely undermined the entire POB system.
Now with the new incentives in place, curation is a healthy 50%, and with all the free downvotes floating around, it's probably better just to vote honestly and help fight abuse.
Acid has already told me he plans to go full curation in the near future. I believe him. Smartsteem is making a move in that direction too, and will attempt to do that for smartmarket as well. That's ballpark 20m SP converting to curation from content indifferent behavior (actual numbers will vary of course, but it's definitely something.)
Please play a part in honest curation now. If most people settled for 50% returns from honest curation, it actually benefits us all the most. And from how things are looking, we're heading in that direction.
See if you can convince @sweetsssj to give it a chance and do the same. Fight against abuse like vote selling and other content indifferent behavior like I do. If we're no longer abusing the system, why should other people get to?
It's been less than 2 weeks but things are looking palpably better. Persuade your circle in playing a bigger part. And if we can install a broadly honest set of voting behaviors platform wide, over time I believe it'll be reflected in the Steem price.
I have a discord. tarazkp there too.
But, you are welcome to talk here too.
Nicely said.