RE: Steem.Organic? Thanks but no thanks!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. We are looking into a re-evaluating categories of "abuse" in general into terms that are less villifying. Maybe misappropriation of the reward pool is a less accusatory way to express it.
I do not put forth effort to conceal my stance against bid bots. My argument against them is on more philosophical grounds but I think arguments can be made using the whitepaper as a basis as the function of votes and their purpose seems to be distinctly indicated. Nevertheless, they have been normalized as a part of Steem culture but not sure if too many have stepped back to evaluate their impact.
I, for one, have seen enough trash content on Trending due to these bid bots to draw my own conclusion but sure plenty are on the fence still. I think tribes is no solution as the bid bots still maintain over the reward pool that dictates the extent by which users may use the Steem network resources (via RCs).
There are no problems that go away by ignoring them and that is what I believe to be happening with Tribes but that's a topic for another day.
Ultimately, I see bid bots as a form of collusive voting but it has been legitimized as Ned gave the business model a nod long ago (which imo was a leadership failure).
This isn't a black and white discussion and I understand but I have not seen one compelling argument as to why we suffer bid bots to exist when promotion is very much possible to implement in the front ends.
We get a front end that filters out bid bot users and has enough popularity. Think there is a good possibility we can see bid bots going the way of the dinosaur. That may be optimistic however as so much power is already concentrated with the bid bot - vote buyer side.
Posted using Partiko Android
I have no issue with people's dislike of bid-bots, I myself am one of those that believe they are bad for the growth of the Steem Block chain. At what price point do we expect large accounts to stop voting above for a single post? At 200,000 Steem Power a vote at current price would be $2.83, and at 500,000SP it is $7.60. So do we put a maximum allowable vote price on people? Do we limit the ability to cast a vote at a maximum value of only say $5.00? Those are today's prices, So at $5.00 it would not be difficult for a large account to manually curate, At higher values, then that becomes a problem.
I do not recall for sure, but it seems that bid-bots came about during a time when votes as a price value were being given in the $100.00 range. This upset a few people because they were not on the receiving end of those votes. So Bid-bots, then vote trails came about, I am not sure which was first, but they are both in my opinion not good for the financial standing of the Steem Block Chain.
The down vote is a "Tool", when it becomes a "Platform", then it is no better for the financial standing of the Steem Block Chain, than the bid-bots or un-monitored vote trails that cast votes on spam, and plagiarized content.
Threats, coercion, and extortion's are not the way to solve any problem. I have seen to many comments associated with down vote pools about If you interact with...you place your self in danger of being down voted, this type or similar are not about a group trying to do good for the Steem Block Chain, these types of comments come off as a group of people trying to control the behavior of people, and to enslave them to their will, their likes, their dislikes.
How long before we see those types of comments on post about "Nixon, Trump, Kennedy, Flat Earth, Muslims, Jewish People, Nazi's, UFO's, etcetera"
That is why we suffer bid-bots. That is why I have an issue with down vote pools. If a post is over valued in a persons opinion then down vote it for it being over valued in your opinion, not because they used bid-bots and vote trails to raise the value of the post.
I have seen people down vote post because of "conspiracy or belief", or life style choice, down vote pools are likely only to grow in power after HF21 if it is voted in, the problem is going to grow.