GrumpyCat Weekly Report Thursday 05 April 2018

29 March - 05 April 2018 @GrumpyCat Activity Report

  • This report is prepared by @the-resistance to inform public on the activity of @GrumpyCat.
  • All the information in this report is based on facts and data. Any comment is defined as Comment in the following post.

GrumpyCat and MadPuppy downvotes

@GrumpyCat downvotes : 23,87 SBD

@MadPuppy downvotes : 724,86 SBD



Downvoting is a self sacrifice for the greater good of the community.
@GrumpyCat, should use his power to self-upvote instead of downvoting and take 748,73 SBD from reward pool for himself.

The problem is, this argument is only valid if you strip the money from whales.
If you take the money from a minnow, the rest of the minnows can only get a very small percentage of this money because their VESTS are very low compared to whales.

Also, another problem is self upvote.
If you strip the money from the minnow and self-upvote yourself as a whale, you again take the biggest share from this money from the reward pool for yourself.

GrumpyCat and MadPuppy self upvotes

Coming to the point of upvotes of @GrumpyCat we can see the following table :

During past week @GrumpyCat have self upvoted himself from @Grumpycat and from @MadPuppy account with a value of 2206 SBD.

This is %97,8 of his all upvotes.

%1,9 upvote is given to @berniesanders
%0,3 upvote is given to @lensaveganiving

The ratio of downvotes/self upvotes is 3:1
For each downvoted 1 SBD, @GrumpyCat self upvoted with 3 SBD.


We don't believe this is about sharing with the community.

Downvoting is giving to the community, at least some bits for minnows.
Taking money from minnows and putting the biggest share of this money to your pocket by self upvoting can't be explained by caring about the community.

@The-Resistance is not concerned about @GrumpyCat's self upvotes.
What concerns us is @GrumpyCat's hurting innocent people and trying to do it under a mask of "community-caring" cat.

An Open Proposal for @GrumpyCat

We have a much better proposal, instead of punishing people who use bid-bots that doesn't comply, start randomly rewarding people who doesn't use the bid-bot's that you don't like.

You hit people 700 SBD / week.

Announce that you will reward 2 people per day that you will choose randomly who uses the tag #iamnotusingxxxbot.
Give 50 SBD per person/day.

This will make the same amount and you will achieve a much better result.
The bot will sure comply since nobody will use it, and you will not be a bully but a hero.
Are you in ?


join-the-resistance :


Dear Lord cat - I understand you read the holy figure 3.5 on that sword you pulled out of the shimmering lake - and you are the most holy one to whom I now direct my question (I am prostrate before your shining holiness) May I upvote my own post beyond the holy 3.5 day limit?

I think the point is to prevent people from using bid-bots after 3.5 days. Go ahead and self-vote your own post, just don't use your own bid-bot to upvote your post/comment.

His algorithm isn't looking for people that are upvoting things older than 3.5 days, it has a parameter of the bid-bots that are upvoting posts older than 3.5 days.

The way you phrase it is to imply he isn't preventing me doing anything, which is not true. His parameter is punishing people from using a bid-bot after 3.5 days. What this means is it is taking my right to choose to promote my post after 3.5 days. If I had a high self-upvote, I would have no need for a bid bot. This is what he or she has at his or her disposal, the power to promote a post by a self upvote or by having a second account do it for him/her. When I attempt to do the same by investing my own money (as he/she has done into his/her accounts) he/she wants to prevent me doing so. This is not fair.

I am willing to pay for an upvote in order to promote my post - I should be allowed to exercise my right unhindered at any time before the post matures. The same right he /she has to self-upvote.

If my post is of a low quality - or heaven forbid, you are are a grumpy puss that flags people's content because you disagree with them, then by all means, downvote it. It is your right as well. What is depressing is seeing intelligent and creative people who simply cave in to this type of tyranny, citing all manner of rationalisations. One has to wonder, is it fear or profit that ultimately drives people to cave in when they are supporting something which is wrong.

He's completely entitled to flag any post he feels is abusing the rewards. And his particular reason is: if you use a bid-bot within the last 3.5 days. That's why you might get flagged. He's letting everyone know why he's doing it and giving them all a heads up, so if they do decide to promote after the 3.5 day threshold they are risking a chance to get a flag. Sure, if your post is of low-quality then it deserves to get downvoted, as you say, or simply neglected by the community, but it's also in his right to be able to flag posts. Also, before the cat implemented the 3.5 days time-limit, abusers would buy votes for their post at around 6.5 days which would reduce the time @steemcleaners would be able to remove rewards.

Sure, you may not have a high vote value and hell, neither do I, but why can't you just stick to using the bots within the first half of your post's life? Why isn't 3.5 days enough time to pump all your SBD into it? I use bid-bots and only use them within the first day, maybe the second day at the latest, and I find it more than enough time to promote my posts. But then again, I'm not relying on Steemit to feed my family and this is just a hobby for me, writing a blog about my travels.

Maybe everyone else is just driven by the dollar sign at the bottom of their posts and they lose sight of what this platform should truly be about.

Maybe @Grumpycat and @themarkymark, with his amazing blacklist, could team up and hunt down more wrong-doers abusing the system.

Why not just stay indoors after 6 PM because that is curfew hour and the government gave you enough of a heads up. It's all for a good, nebulous, cause. Most crimes happen afer 6 PM so why find yourself on the wrong side of the guilt line. Just trust the government.

Meanwhile, the government is allowed to do whatever it pleases after dark.

Sounds legitimate ;-)

The reason I don't support bid-bot owners who caved in to tyranny is because I don't like suckups. Give them a dollar today and by God, they will do away with you in a flash tomorrow if given the chance. I don't deal with gangsters. They break my knee caps, I buy a shotgun for the next time they come in the store.

You win the internet. I haven't seen this much sense on here in a while. Here's a hypothesis to think about:

Grumpycat is a bot owner himself (or a conglomerate thereof). These businesses seek to use force (or the representation of it in Steem) to limit the ability of their competition to service a part of the market for which they have no interest. They know the ramifications of carrying out such an action in public eye would be disastrous to their business. So they form a government (grumpycat) to serve as their muscle in order to weaken the competition.

Your theory is highly plausible. It would explain why the majority of these witnesses (some of whom are vegan, slash, non-aggression-principled folks too - @jerrybanfield @teamsteem etc) are not opposed to this type of abuse of the flag feature - I had @themarkymark, (this links to his admission of doing so) small flag as he calls it, an unrelated post a few days ago, merely because I questioned one of his bots that are supposed to be fighting a war against spam.

Highly non-aggressive actions: as teamsteem said it: as long as they don't do anything violent or was it aggressive I can't remember his exact choice of words.

I have just been a victim of @grumpycat and @madpuppy. So sad that it was all about timing or something that I knew nothing about! He even Upvoted his own post while taking the moral high ground about my choice of marketing my own work! Thanks for being on my side. It is much appreciated!

Thank you for the clarification and the report. I was surprised to find the mad puppy post on my most recent post. It appears that despite trying to remain complaint within the 3.5 time window, and only post good content the downvote was made to counter the @sneaky-ninja vote.

Thanks for your comment. It is just cold truth told with facts and data.
For the downvote, know that you are not alone.


Thank you for your timely response! I did have a question for you: I've noticed on some posts that you have a counter post to grumpy or one of his affiliates. I've even seen this on trending a few times. As a minnow here on steemit, i was curious: is this comment / post on post done to any individuals that have been downvoted/flagged, or is it a service that requires requests?

Thanks for your time!

The-Resistance counter posts are sent via our bot we-resist.
This is not a service on request but we are spreading the word by informing each victim of GC that "they are not alone".

We would really appreciate you elaboration.
You can do it easily by nominating a certain amount of your voting power to the bot.

With this, our ethical bot does 3 things :
1- Upvote with all the members if you are flagged again by GC, a kind of heal.
2- Downvote GC self upvotes with a very tiny downvote, not because we object his self upvotes but to put our signature that we don't agree to what he is doing
3- All your posts and comments will be upvoted by the @the-resistance user as long as it is over 80% voting power.

You are kindly invited to our home : for further information.


That was a very informative response! thank you. I'll look into it.

edit: Please let me know if you need me to elaborate!

Your proposal is an excellent idea. Catch more flies with honey and all... rewarding good behavior and ignoring bad behavior is how you get children to comply without beating them...

Thank you, we hope the cat will think like you :)


Very good idea @the-resistance. Maybe he'll listen to some Reasoning :)

Thank you @robertandrew.
We hope he will listen.
We are trying to find a win-win proposal.


This is the first I've heard of MadPuppy.

  • What is "his" goal?

Is GrumpyCat and MadPuppy the same user?

@wizardave, GrumpyCat and MadPuppy are same user.


It's a sort of a holy trinity - there is still only one Lord creator whose name no one knows and may never speak, a son the cat and a holy spirit puppy.

GrumpyCat's main thing is don't use bots that allow votes on posts older than 3.5 days. (At least I think)

  • I don't know how "he" came up with < 3.5 days is ok and > is not, but whatever...

What does MadPuppy downvote?

The puppy does as his Lord commands him. It all depends what he pulls out of the shimmering lake. The rest of of us mortals are expected to bow in obedience.

haha I see

  • said the blind man
    • as he picked up his hammer
      • and saw.

that was one of his claims @wizardave and may have had some validity if he hadn't continued to hit people who used bots compliant with the 3.5day edict. He's also hit people who don't use bots at all. The message from those actions is .. he's merely a bully with SP

Ahh gotcha. That's a bit psycho...

Don't you think it is kind of suspicious that bernie is being upvoted by grumpycat?

Congratulations @the-resistance! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of upvotes

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Upvote this notification to help all Steemit users. Learn why here!

Do not miss the last announcement from @steemitboard!

@grumpycat has made it clear that he does not like bots or accounts that try to game the system. Anyone that uses bots or knows how to use them are likely completely aware of this fact. It is my understanding that the white paper for steemit does not allow for bots. I have seen post that claim 90%+ of all votes on steemit now are done by bots. @grumpycat gets no rewards for the the down votes he cast. He is in disagreement with certain bots of the rewards being given. He is using his vote power completely in compliance with the FAQ page of steemit. Disagreement over reward pool payout.

I have been down voted by people because they did not like a comment I made. Lots of people have been down voted because of comments they made. That is not the purpose of the down vote. The primary Purpose of the down vote is exactly the way @grumpycat is using it.

A better use of groups like yours would be to clean up the trending and hot tabs. They are screwed up because of the use of vote bots. I deal mostly in the arena of the new user, there is not a single new user on the trending page or the hot page for #introduceyoursef. It is full of assholes that have purchased votes from bid bots for the purpose of getting on the trending page of #introduceyourself so they can steal from new users. Once again I direct your attention to the FAQ for steemit. The #introduceyourself tag is one of the very few tags mentioned in the FAQ, and that is that it should only be used once to introduce yourself to the steemit community.

In conclusion, if you really cared about @grumpycats activities and the reward pool, then you would have declined payout on this post and other similar post. If you cared about the new users, then you would instead be trying to educate them and helping them to grow and pointing out to them that they lose money every time they use a vote bot. As far as I know the bots are in business to make money, not to give it away.

I would upvote your post, but I have a dissenting opinion.

@bashadow, thank you for your points.
Let me try to clarify.

  • The purpose of the downvote : We agree it is allowed, even supported to downvote in the whitepaper. Downvote is exactly giving undeserved payouts back to community and it is a self sacrifice. What we don't agree is downvoting of the minnows, with fresh posts and non-spam content. GrumpyCat has all the tools to choose the 3.5+ days bidders and spam posts. Instead, he is downvoting innocent people with fresh posts and calling them "collateral damage"
    We don't resist his cause, we resist his method.

  • Bidbots : If GrumpyCat was totally opposing bidbots, that would also be understandable.This is not his aim.
    You are absolutely right, new users mostly lose money everytime they use bidbots especially with small amounts.

  • We haven't declined the payout for this post because we are trying to make the @the-resistance user as strong as possible.If you check our wallet history, there is no cash flow from @the-resistance user to any one.
    We only buy delegation of SP ( not even direct SP ) in this user.

I hope I was able to clarify some points.
Even thinking to upvote the post is enough kind. Thank you.


What we don't agree is downvoting of the minnows, with fresh posts and non-spam content. GrumpyCat has all the tools to choose the 3.5+ days bidders and spam posts. Instead, he is downvoting innocent people with fresh posts and calling them "collateral damage"
We don't resist his cause, we resist his method.

When @grumpycat used that phrase "collateral damage", I disagreed with him using it then and I still disagree with it. To the best of my knowledge, no minnow's rep has been hurt by @grumpycat. He is pretty careful about how much he downvotes a post. If that minnow has been on steemit long enough to know how to use bid bots, then they have been on steemit long enough to know the possible consequences of using them. They are not innocent.

Bidbots : If GrumpyCat was totally opposing bidbots, that would also be understandable.This is not his aim.

Grumpycat has made it pretty clear about what tactics he does not like bid-bots employing. He has never stated he is against all bid bots. (Personally I wish he was, and that there were no bid bots at all). The bid bot owners know what his aim is. To me it seems clear what his aim is, if there are going to be bid bots allowed then they need to follow rules and not be gameable.

I don't think we will ever agree, you see what he is doing as wrong. I see what he is doing as right. Depending on what side of the moat you lived, Robin Hood was either a good guy, or a bad guy.

I agree it all depends on the "side of the moat".
At our side:

  • Robin Hood is a good character taking from the rich and giving to poor.
  • GrumpyCat is a bad character taking from the poor and giving it to nobody other than himself.

We can see the big difference.

As it is said : "we agree that we will never agree" ;)


Grumpy cat looks scary to me but they are also cute 😍😍💖
So I love these kinds of grumpy cats 🐈
Thanks @the-resistance. For this awesome post