I don't. I typically get 3/4 of my rewards from my comments, rather than my posts, and such limits would probably be difficult to design to prevent harming folks engaging on other's posts.
Particularly for new users, doing that is a far more profitable use for their time than posting epic blogs into the void of obscurity most posts fall into.
I'm just eclectic and interested in the ideas folks come up with, and discussing them is educational.
$25 should be enough right?
What do you think?
(Btw even I earn more through my comments, somehow for some reason, people like it lol)
And I see you already proving your point.
Ban vote-bots altogether, how about that? I mean, if we're actually making good content, then we don't need bot votes, right?
I know this sounds a bit far fetched.
This is a social media platform. How well do bots fit in with other social activities? Would you send a robot to a wedding instead of going yourself?
We suffer degradation of our society insofar as we automate it, and for me, this is the worst aspect of bots. Sure, they make ROI for the whales, but so can manual curation. At least it'd be people themselves voting, even if they still voted up crap. It'd be the people's crap.
The problem is that almost no one comes to the conclusion that bots are anathema to society, because they're focused on rewards, not society. Some people do terrible things for money, and the skewing of our debate and rewards seems a minor kerfuffle in comparison.
Worse yet, the whales are the folks that reap the profits of the upvote bots. It's their stake that funds them, after all. Minnows wanna win, like gamblers that wanna hit the jackpot. If they can just buy a big enough vote from a bidbot, or if a whale would just toss them a vote, they'd be soooo happy, they think.
Neither group wants to get rid of bots. They want to profit from them. Most of us, like gamblers, won't. Stinc and the witnesses need to do what the whales want, or go find different jobs, cuz the whales have the Steem that pays them.
In the meantime, bots really control the conversation by determining who is paid for contributing, and this is a problem, because bots are very poor choosers of quality.
Instead of selfvoting, folks just buy votes from bots. It's a little less profitable, as the bots cost money. Not enough of a difference to make a difference though.
Maybe an earning limit on comments?
Yeah, this sounds plausible.
I second this.
I don't. I typically get 3/4 of my rewards from my comments, rather than my posts, and such limits would probably be difficult to design to prevent harming folks engaging on other's posts.
Particularly for new users, doing that is a far more profitable use for their time than posting epic blogs into the void of obscurity most posts fall into.
I'm just eclectic and interested in the ideas folks come up with, and discussing them is educational.
$25 should be enough right?
What do you think?
(Btw even I earn more through my comments, somehow for some reason, people like it lol)
And I see you already proving your point.
Well, let's get to the root of the problem, rather than trying to cure the symptoms.
The symptoms we're talking about curing are a direct result of bots voting.
Cure that. Problem solved.
Ban vote-bots altogether, how about that? I mean, if we're actually making good content, then we don't need bot votes, right?
I know this sounds a bit far fetched.
I've long recommended exactly that.
This is a social media platform. How well do bots fit in with other social activities? Would you send a robot to a wedding instead of going yourself?
We suffer degradation of our society insofar as we automate it, and for me, this is the worst aspect of bots. Sure, they make ROI for the whales, but so can manual curation. At least it'd be people themselves voting, even if they still voted up crap. It'd be the people's crap.
The problem is that almost no one comes to the conclusion that bots are anathema to society, because they're focused on rewards, not society. Some people do terrible things for money, and the skewing of our debate and rewards seems a minor kerfuffle in comparison.
Worse yet, the whales are the folks that reap the profits of the upvote bots. It's their stake that funds them, after all. Minnows wanna win, like gamblers that wanna hit the jackpot. If they can just buy a big enough vote from a bidbot, or if a whale would just toss them a vote, they'd be soooo happy, they think.
Neither group wants to get rid of bots. They want to profit from them. Most of us, like gamblers, won't. Stinc and the witnesses need to do what the whales want, or go find different jobs, cuz the whales have the Steem that pays them.
In the meantime, bots really control the conversation by determining who is paid for contributing, and this is a problem, because bots are very poor choosers of quality.
Get rid of self upvoting. That would solve some of the problem I think.
Instead of selfvoting, folks just buy votes from bots. It's a little less profitable, as the bots cost money. Not enough of a difference to make a difference though.