You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steem is a Free Market, Therefore Buying Votes is Voluntary and Not a Problem (or is it?)
I wrote a post on paper. Its along these same lines. I don't know if I want to post it now lol. Basically I talked about how the last human curators are holding out, but eventually the vote bots will win. I could make much more money delegating my voting power. As soon as Luke Stokes and team Steem, ura soul and flipstar, gr1 and mangos. Surpassing Google and pharesim start delegating to bots, this platform is in for some rough roads. Not saying they will, but they are losing money for not. While the vote bots and self upvoters take money, the human curators upvoting good content are losing.
The vote buying pushes value to a narrow end with no risk to the sellers as what they are selling is access to a public pool, not their personal value but, people are buying in with what they earn from that same pool. It doesn't work.
If you are interested for reference, I have written a couple past pieces dating back 7 months:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@tarazkp/1-step-back-2-steps-forward-vote-buying-question-and-trending-part-repost
https://steemit.com/steemit/@tarazkp/pride-and-foolishness
Funnily enough, surfermarly has been complaining again about the lately yet, she is one of the heaviest beneficiaries of being an early adopter. It seems that the ancap want legislation to protect their wealth now.
Bidbots are a scourge on the platform and will lead to this place having no value. They make it a pyramid scheme where the bids have to continually increase to get value out. It will not lead anywhere good otherwise pyramid schemes would be great ideas for all economies.
I tend to agree that bid bots pose an economic issue for Steem. Do you have any solution?
I agree, it's a scourge of that casts an image of dishonesty and disintegrity on the platform. So many schemes are created that focus on extracting money/tokens, yet don't actually add value to the platform through the content that could draw people in. Exploiting the platform to extract the most without adding real value content is a problem since day 1, and these people always get to keep the money from their scammy behavior. Crooked behavior wins on the platform, always.
If we want to resolve the debate and conflict about this issue, we need to reach a consensus. How? I see the only way to get people to see the issue is by demonstrating it. Why drag this out for a year or two in a slow downfall and prolonged suffering. Let's rip the bandaid off quick and get the pain over with. That's my goal here. This will continue to be a behavior if we just keep arguing. Arguing does nothing to bring a solution on Steem it seems because no consensus is reached. People will do as they want unless faced with consequences. The price of STEEM falling is a consequence they might recognize if done in a short period where peop;e can see the effects play out. Dragging this on for 1-2 years will have a gradualism effect where we can't see the the source of the problem manifesting immediately.
I actually think think this is part of the scam. Prolonging the fate means higher ROI. If all use the bots it kills that possibility as the system collapses. The scam requires enough people not using it. I don't know if you saw the numbers I ran last night but on the bots but it doesn't take many users to extract a massive amount from the platform.
Exactly. It only is viable if few use it, and they can keep reaping the profits. It only fails if a majority use it to make it unprofitable and not worth using. They depend on a low percentage of use in order to continue to exploit the advantage.