Why Boycotting Bidbots to Save the Reward Pool is a Fruitless Endeavor.

in #informationwar6 years ago (edited)

Allot of people on Steemit hate bidbots, this is because when the bots took over with all of their sneaky automated shenanigans it resulted in people receiving fewer rewards because the owners of the bots were no longer reading posts or using their Steem Power to curate content organically.


A look at the Problem and How to fix it!

Quickly in came the notion that these bid bot owners were raping the reward pool. There’s only a finite amount of rewards right? And these assholes, why god damn! They’re taking the most of it! This is because their amount of (early mined, purchased, or earned) Steem Power gives them very valuable votes.

I think we’d all like to blog on a platform where everyone no matter the value of their vote instead of running bots would read through content and curate manually. If that were the case rewards would happen more organically and more based on the merit of the post.

However, some people have come to this platform and decided to operate in such a way where they could maximize their earning potential by voting as selfishly as possible. The question is, could these people be encouraged to do otherwise? Could they be shamed into not liking money?

I think the answer to that question is probably a resounding no. Let me explain why. You see, these massive Steem holders have become accustomed to a certain way of life. One that benefits them greatly based on their Steem investments.

For example, if 95% of all the people on Steemit banded together in one unifying pledge not to use vote bot services, I think what would end up happening is that the bot owners would turn to self-voting and reciprocal voting. It’s not like they’re not smart enough not too.

This would result in the same amount of rewards being "raped" daily yet the Steem power would simply fall into fewer hands than if the votes were sold outright to the Steemit community.

So there it is, that’s my thought experiment, it’s my logic on why putting these guys out of business for the community would resort to making them go into business for themselves, and only for themselves.

If you can find a flaw in this logic feel free to chime in at the comment section below, as I don’t see a winning strategy whereby ‘we the people’ can force them to redistribute their Steem power the way we see fit.

Also, I am not sure it should be the job of ‘we the people’ to attempt to redistribute anything but I suppose that largely depends upon one's political leanings and penchant towards forcing others into sharing the power of their wealth.

Maybe the big question we ought to be asking ourselves is; are we entitled to the votes of these whales? Are we entitled to anyone's vote? Also, are we showing enough appreciation to those in the community who selflessly curate manually?


Radically altering Steemit via Sporadic Dynamism!
Also Known as the Inverted Broken Window Theory.

These are some seriously deep topics that we should be considering. Hell instead of focusing on hating those that won't share. Maybe we should show some love to those that do. As they say, you can catch more bees with honey than flies with shit.

Maybe we should have campaigns to delegate to the good guys instead of trying to separate others from their gains, no matter how ill-gotten you perceive them to be. Sharing is caring, we can't force others too but we can do it ourselves!

So let's get this party started. Right now, I want you to commit to a 1-month delegation of however much Steem Power you please and send that to someone who either deserves or needs it. Then send them a wallet message or leave a comment that says: "Congratulations You've Received a 1-Month Appreciation Delegation!".

After a month goes by pull your delegations wait for seven days and do the same damn thing over again for new people whose work you appreciate. Let's spread a little good will and a little good cheer. We do it on the holidays right? Why can't every month be a holiday on Steemit?

If we all learn to become friends with one another I think it will foster some good vibrations on this platform. I think we could switch things up overnight even. Let's spread this goodwill and philosophy all throughout the platform.

Over time the bidbot owners that actually care about the community, maybe they'll join in the fun too. As they say; a rising tide raises all ships and that tide is Steem Power baby! It's what makes Steemit work and now we should all start working together for the greater good if you please.

If you are more in the business mindset think of these as no-risk interest-free loans that you'll be giving out every month to different people.

You'll always get that Steem Power back yet in the meantime you'll be increasing the voting power of others so that they can, in turn, help people with their votes. You'll be single-handedly implementing the butterfly effect and the more that you do this the more it helps to advertise either your blog or your business. WIN/WIN/WIN!

Go go gadget operation #sparklefarts!



Images above Courtesy of Pixabay! [1] [2]

Sort:  

how well has redistributing other peoples wealth worked out when it's been tried before?
What's to stop the people who created the wealth from leaving?
Then the whole thing comes crashing down.

Venezuela comes to mind.

I agree with you 100%. I like voluntaryism and charity, that should always come from the heart.

Um, are you arguing in favor of votebots, or against them? I'm not sure whose wealth the reward pool is that votebots are redistributing after taking their cut, but I recall reading in the white paper that the intention of the rewards pool was to enable content creators to be rewarded for creating content, not to be sold off like grazing lands in medieval England.

So, I remain opposed to votebots selling the common resource that was intended to be delivered by curators.

I thought you were also. Curious if your views have changed.

nope...my views have not changed.
destroy all bots..

and auto voters? I'm not allowed to automatically support a friend of mine with a 5% upvote or 50% if I want? It's my SP after all, right? :)

then tip him or transfer funds to his account.
AFTER you've...ya know...read his post..(it's called curating)
my opinion..destroy all bots

They should spend their time improving the UI, not worrying about rewards (wealth) redistribution. It's my SP. I should be able to do with it as I please. Sure, I may get a bad reputation for supporting bad people, but it is still my choice. If I want to automatically support known liberty lovers who are furthering individual liberty, that's my choice to do it.

certainly, you can also litter ...many people do..
in my opinion an autobot is contrary to the very concept of curation
bot's are similar to toxic waste.

Someone who auto votes for friend's content then is the same as a bid bot and just as bad to you?

To me I believe one is far worse for the platform than the other.

Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Relevance:The Free Market is the way to be successful
Our Purpose

Whales and witness' can afford to make the first move and lead by example for the community they wish to set. New users and minnows should not be blamed or expected for this.

Thanks for your feedback on this @risemultiversity!

Well written post. I am new around here, and tried to understand Steemit platform deeply. Powerful Wales censorship, and bots ripping of the community gain are the main concerns of mine. Bots, I think can be dealt with, by denouncing + panning them. One by One. That is a massive job, but that could be done by the massive Steem community. That would require some positioning from Steemit devs (and witness), which I hope might happen soon, bringing more credibility to the entire platform and the main idea driving it.

Thanks for your feedback @borges.barilla. Because of the very nature of bots it's something that would be impossible to outright ban as the owners would simply tweak the algorithms to overcome whatever hurdles are thrown their way. By simply owning steem power and keeping it on the blockchain it actually does add value to the SBD. So even if hypothetically speaking bots could be banned, bot owners would probably end up dumping all of their steem onto the market which would cause a drop in the value of the SBD. Big question is how many people would buy the price dip if they didn't think they could capitalize off of their investments? Allot of the people who have bought into steem are doing so to capitalize off of their investments. It might be why the SBD has become as valuable as it has in the past.

Hi @thoughts-in-time, I appreciate your reply. I keep thinking about the bots, and how they might affect Steemers along time... Still, strategies on banning bots could be discussed, and outcomes from potential bot-owners sell off could be mitigated if we act right now -since this platform is still in its infancy- . I just became motivated to keep puling the debate, so I materialize my current view in a post :

https://steemit.com/steem/@borges.barilla/steemit-new-addicted-user-first-impressions

I will be following your updates,

Best regards,

b.b.

Actually, I keep reading about the theme, and found out the discussion is relativelly "old", being part of the platform since its beginning. here is a link to relatively old article about bots

I take that back, it might be
possible. This guy thinks he
knows a way it can be done.

The consequences of said
implementation are beyond
my purview at this time.

Truly great idea from this guy! And great article (really full of value). It resumes to the "adding of an authentication procedure, embedded at the blockchain level, which certainly would demand a fork". The nice thing is... if the Steemit community and its devs continue to move so slowly to solve this problem, someone might decide to fork Steemit blockchain, only to implement this impressively-simple and effective bot-killer solution! What about teaming up for that? ; )

Well, I don't necessarily support it philosophically because I think the way things are now is that people are using their SP (or property) the way in which they see fit, or choose to. So in that sense I view it from a property rights perspective. You could always consult with that author in the comment section of his post. We had a lengthy discussion on the matter and he does seem to think that it would be an idea worth implementing.

I understand your point... but from my current understanding, I really think that a property driven platform is not going to thrive against a close competitor that really focus on valuable content reward. Anyway, isn't that why many good written came around here (this bot-driven platform) and gave up?

That's tough to say. Might be six to one half a dozen the other. I use bidbots and that may be the only reason that I stayed. This, because I know when I use the bots people will read what I write. If/when I don't use the bots I'm just whispering in the wind.

I've spent a very long time blogging into one of Google's memory holes reserved especially for people like me with potent and thoroughly discouraged opinions.

I was mainly blogging just as an outlet at that point, but I eventually got fed up with it and when I saw the potential of Steemit. I decided it was time to blog here and be seen and maybe even compensated from time to time.

It certainly doesn't replace having a job, the remuneration is a pittance in comparison. Yet it is very nice and sometimes even more beneficial to be rewarded something, anything, when writing on topics that you are 100% passionate about.

I plan to use bots here and there to establish a presence/readership on the blockchain. Once my presence is established and I'm earning even if it's just 5 per post, then I'll probably be using bots with far less frequency. Unless and of course I write something epic.

It all comes down to it being power to the people.a choice.we’re all given a choice.weather to use the bots or not to use those bots.my point is this.choice and will power.my Father has taught me that we can’t control other people’s actions but we can control our own.
choice.to use or not to use.
7EE16823-8594-4577-B7B8-6D862F1A1C70.png

I will say this also.after being on steemit and seeing how crypto currency is so unstable. A self-sufficient Lifestyle of handmade, homemade and homegrown is looking really nice.

I tend to agree with you @originalathena,
thanks for sharing your thoughts on this!

The bots arent the problem and never have been - its the way they are being used (and abused) by everyone - from plagarised, low quality content being upvoted for more than its worth and thus inflating peoples perception of what they can earn on here and also unfairly allocating the reward pool.

The only way to really fix the problem is from the top (the bot owners), who need to show more care for the Steem econ system by having some kind of quality control over the posts they upvote rather than just upvoting anything that pays for it - but this probably wont happen because it will be a big human cost and (most) bot owners are just out for maximum ROI. But in the long term they will be the ones who suffer the most because they are heavily invetsed in Steem - and when the quaility of content is lower, people are less likely to invest and Steem will decrease in price.

Either that or a hard fork to ban bots (but this wouldnt happen!)

That's a good idea, I've seen allot of bots that do exercise some quality control and even prohibit certain users who abuse their service. Yet, I think generally speaking, some folks group them in their mind all into one category. The world of automation and bots might be something impossible to reverse yet maybe people should appreciate bot operators that attempt to address the problem of severely low quality posts being boosted.

I know several of those companies have blacklists or whitelists to address such a problem. A hard fork to ban bots might also cripple investment in SBD or Steem Power if would be buyers thought that ROI would be more difficult to achieve.

Many seem to want to be investing in either the next bitcoin or at least something that can maintain its value as opposed to losing value in the long run. Hopefully, the collective of the Steem community will only implement hard forks that don't end up disturbing the echo system to much to the point where people's SBD value is radically diminished. I'm certainly no macroeconomic expert, all I can do is share my thoughts on these things.

I like your solution and yet it is only a partial solution.

The truth is if it is in the bidbot owners interest to only take bids for post that meet the copyright standards and have some good content, then they ought for their own continued business do so themselves.

If I was a bidbot owner I would have a terms of service and in it I would point out:

  1. If your content does not meet the minimum standards you will not get the up vote, but a message on your wallett giving you time to correct the discovered error.

Plagerism is grounds for no up vote. Theft is grounds for no up vote. You have so much time to correct the error. If you don't no refunds.

The bidbot's have enough SP that writing post complaining could just get your post flagged. The truth here is that in fact the ROI of these bidbots could suffer greatly if people start figuring out that you indemnify steemit.com but not the other accounts. Thus if bidbot owners continue to up vote stolen material they can be sued under copyright law. The same laws that forbid theft or the encouragement by providing profit from theft do apply. That is why after all Fences go to jail.

You make very good points @aconsciousness! In fact allot of the
better bidbots operate more intelligently with the community in
mind. For example @smartsteem has a white list. One needs be
approved before you can use their service.

Other bots like @buildawhale have blacklists to prevents spammers,
shit posters, and plagiarists from cluttering up the scene. They also
offer up to a 10% ROI which after curation makes it easier to potenti-
ally break even.

It would be nice to see more bot owners mirror their tactics and maybe
even get competitive on ROI for their customers if this is going to be the
way of Steemit's future.

Then preemptive reform would be a pound of prevention. We could
have quality trending lists and beneficial services! Thanks for your
feedback @aconsciousness!

P.S. Maybe if any bot operators have read this you could cavort with
your conspirators and help to make Steemit great again, or at least
a little bit better : ) I think it would be neato if Steemit bot operators
would help us all out with operation #sparklefarts!

I think I am going to take this a little higher up the food chain. The truth is this practice of the bidbots is endangering steemit.com and I for one don't like it.

Do as you will man, as far as I know,
it is a technical impossibility to prevent.

It might not be about preventing, but about dealing with it.

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, one post I seen was suggesting that content creators be taxed an additional 25% and then giving that SBD to the curators. That solution makes no sense to me, I think it will only cause more problems.

That it exactly @baah . You always slam the hammer down on the nail. lol

Yet steemit.com isn't Steem. Steem is the decentralized network that it present through a front-end.

I did a whole bunch of research and this is actually the truth. Steemit is a subsidiary of the four Corporations that own everything, just like all corporations are. Even the Block Chain.

Nobody owns the blockchain. Steemit is not Steem. The blockchain is owned by the people who either have stake in the network and/or are actually running the network (witnesses). The Block Chain is a concept predating the internet by millennia, ledgers and block chains are the exact same thing, to say someone owns that idea is to seriously mistake what those things mean and why they are adopted.

Steemit.com doesn't own Steem or is responsible for Steem.

That would be the Block Chain which is still owned by the Corporate world.

Nobody, but the people with stake, actually owns any part of the platform, and the steem blockchain is decentralized because of the risk of one entity owning the blockchain, and the proof is in the two facts: the project is open source, and the project can be forked and has been forked (Golos).

Maybe steemians don't like bidbots but I like only one boots which is @booster cos it upbotes all comments under its users

Like conradt said, the bots aren't entirely the problem. The problem is the lack of quality control on posts that receive boosts. Bot owners should come up with some measures that could work.

Also, the idea of delegating to communities and individuals who are selfless on here is a grand one. Maybe we don't have enough to delegate, we could also join the trial to better reward good contents. There's curie and qurator and a whole lot others. I see a brighter steemit. We just need a bit more work and we'll be fine.

Good post.

Thank you for your feedback @pangoli I tend to agree with
you on the quality control aspect. If bots are a problem though,
I think the more we can influence bot owners who don't practice
quality control the better the trending pages will be overall. Ho-
wever, I think we need to wage influence in positive ways.

this reminds me, I need to hit steembottracker.com and bid my posts up!

i think the onus of blame goes on delegators rathe than bot owners.. !

also, I think you are right,, it wouldn't help to boycott them..
The issue is that people with a lot of SP cannot read enough posts every day to really curate that well.. there are a few that do it and its a full time job!

Therefore I think that improving bots is one solution .. and in my opinion whitelisting is a GREAT option to improve bots .. There are a few people who do this, and the @ecotrain bot is one of the first on steembottracker to do it.. Smartsteem also do it, and that is great.. also @tribesteemup do this within a community of amazing people who all post great content..

Bots are still new, and I think things will evolve in different ways so that things are improved.. They are a great concept in many ways,, and alleviate the issues of self voting and vote swapping to a great extent.. and provide a way for others to get a share of the Reward pool..

Lets see what happens!

Last year a few folks got together and made moderate delegations to folks they thought were doing good things. @fulltimegeek, @stellabelle, and @aggroed were delegating to various and many delegates that were then encouraged to upvote others they in turn thought were doing good things.

During the experiment, @abh12345 tracked various metrics of engagement, number of accounts upvoted, number of selfvotes, etc... My recollection is that almost all of the delegates improved their metrics considerably during the experiment, and those delegations distributed the curation possible to the SP delegated to ten times as many accounts as the delegators could have reached.

I believe in that process, and believe it impacts the price of Steem by growing the market for it, potentiating capital gains for the delegators as well as the delegates and curated authors. You could find out more by asking @abh12345, or just checking out his blog.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about, this one is similar but it changes monthly. By sending wallet messages and leaving comments like "Congratulations You've Received a 1-Month Appreciation Delegation!", these comments or wallet messages can help to promote the program naturally.

Also, it can make the recipient of said delegation feel appreciated and they'll get a confidence boost and maybe later down the line when they've picked up enough steem they may do the same thing for others.

I just think voluntaryism is always the way to go, this as opposed to using psychologically coercive tactics to try and manipulate individuals to act in a prescribed way. That route is never appealing and often doesn't happen IRL with the exception of cults.

So if we were to cultishly by force impose a HF that taxed content creators by another 25% I fear the bot owners would all to easily adjust and it would be everyone else who got screwed to a greater degree.

By making the delegations temporary and indicating that up front, then there should be no hard feelings when stakes get rotated, only a desire to use that power well, while it's afforded, and the more that these rotations occur, the faster and more prominently the program is advertised.

If those individuals are doing this, I hope they are bragging about these things, as they should be highly promoted, in my opinion anyhow. Soon my slider will be unlock and I plan to increase my involvement in this operation.

I note that extant code is 'force' that makes rampant profiteering, rather than investing, possible.

I reckon it's fakenews to consider changing the code to be imposing 'force'.

Increasing concentration of Steem in the accounts that have the most of it, as current code does, is bad for the price of Steem. Correcting that problem isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Creating market forces that make it profitable to invest in Steem, rather than maximally extract short term financial rewards is simply correcting a mistake that devs were unable to avoid due to the complexity of the innovation Steem and Steemit are, and the similar ineffable nature of human society.

The code they released was intended, per the white paper, to deliver ~30% of rewards to the hoi polloi. What that code actually did was deliver 99% of rewards to whales. It isn't harming whales to correct that mistake. This is why Steemit is still in beta, after all, as mistakes are expected.

Similarly, legally making corporations legal persons has resulted in many harmful effects on society. Correcting that error in American jurisprudence would not be a harm to stockholders, but a restoration of what is just and proper the bad legal code did harm.

I reckon it's fakenews to consider changing the code to be imposing 'force'.

Well it's an enforced tax, enforced by the code.

Increasing concentration of Steem in the accounts that have the most of it, as current code does, is bad for the price of Steem.

Seems like most often it takes money/steem to make money/steem. The rich always tend to get richer.

Correcting that problem isn't forcing anyone to do anything.

Right, it's not force in the physical sense. It's force in the sense the code makes it happen automatically. I'm sure most content crators wouldn't want to lose another 25% of their curation rewards.

Creating market forces that make it profitable to invest in Steem, rather than maximally extract short term financial rewards is simply correcting a mistake that devs were unable to avoid due to the complexity of the innovation Steem and Steemit are, and the similar ineffable nature of human society.

You could look at it as correcting a mistake. However, many times in macroeconomics when these things are attempted they lead to unforseen consequences. I envision disenchanted content creators and bidbot armies voting for each other via steemauto. Votebot accounts that shit post all day every day and the domination of (or trending in) some of the most popular tags.

The code they released was intended, per the white paper, to deliver ~30% of rewards to the hoi polloi. What that code actually did was deliver 99% of rewards to whales. It isn't harming whales to correct that mistake. This is why Steemit is still in beta, after all, as mistakes are expected.

I wonder if communism ever works, or if people will always find a way to capitalize even from within systems that are meant to redistribute wealth? If as you say that was their intention to distribute rewards to the many it sure did not take long to undo that. I didn't even realize this was still in beta, maybe it's a failed model of whatever their intentions were. Or maybe as you said it needs tweaking but that tweaking is a form of enforcement I think. Not force in the physical sense, we're in a virtual world on here.

Similarly, legally making corporations legal persons has resulted in many harmful effects on society. Correcting that error in American jurisprudence would not be a harm to stockholders, but a restoration of what is just and proper the bad legal code did harm.

You're god damn right!

Update: I take that back, I'm not sure who the stakeholders of the United States corporation are. They've created a system of slavery and it might very well indeed harm them in the fiscal sense if it were abolished over night.

The arguments against fixing the code are philosophically the same arguments that could be made against having civilization at all. It's possible for humans to just kill and eat other people, so creating 'code' that prevents it harms cannibals.

Kinda silly, really.

Okay, but like in the U.S. if they suddenly imposed a 50% tax on labor for everyone. Do you think it might solve any problems or just create a bunch of new ones? I think if it can be fixed it should be fixed via the code. I'm just opposed to bad ideas. I don't know how to fix the problem via the code, lots of people have ideas though. Hopefully, they will get it right because if they are to get it more wrong, they may as well be standoffish. I'm not even sure this entire platform is natural or normal in any way. It doesn't conform to the natural world so much.

You mean what they have basically done in bits and pieces since 1913? How about just undoing that tax altogether, sorta like removing the ability of capital to do practically the same thing on Steemit?

I completely agree the problem is in the code, and needs to be solved in the code, if Steemit is to not only survive, but thrive and prosper. For that to happen we need the userbase to expand, and the more broadly the better.

Investors would be intent on doing that to increase the potential capital gains a broader market for Steem would create by pushing up the price of the token.

Profiteers instead suck every token they can now, and damn the future.

@ned recently spoke in Korea, and pointed out the problem is actually stake-weighting (just like in fiat, and the law of the jungle, in which the strong feed on the weak), which he intends to make optional with SMTs. We will be able to see multiple experiments run side-by-side with SMTs, and perhaps be able to banish opinion in favor of actual data regarding how code can optimize.

I look greatly forward to that!

Thank you @eco-alex for your thoughtful comment, feedback, and insight.
I did not know that about @ecotrain now I do! I think over time the respo-
sible bot owners will do their best to operate in the community's interest.
It's easy for some of those bots to blend in but the ones that stand out, they
are the ones that give back to the community and try not to annoy us w/spam.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.28
TRX 0.13
JST 0.032
BTC 60463.70
ETH 2889.42
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.59