I would have thought my previous comment was easy to understand, but let me try to spell out my thought processes:
In various arguments during presentation articles about the reason why HF21 is needed, plus why the re-alignment of curator/author fees is necessary, we were told that bot votes purchased by authors will no longer be profitable and it will either be stopped or reduced. They added to that argument their statement that with downvotes being free, it will be possible to downvote authors who buy votes, thus helping to stamp out this system.
The reason for all this, it was claimed, is that bot voting is so commonly used that it is destroying the reputation of Steemit and keeping investors away...thus knocking down the value of STEEM.
All I did in my previous comment is present a table showing that bot voting accounts for UNDER half a percent of all voting and I wondered how this could be so threatening. How can it be such a huge problem at under half a percent?
As for my asking whether I have misunderstood something, I was only admitting that I am not that knowledgeable about the subject and am willing to hear in what way(s) I have misunderstood the situation and their arguments.
Since you must understand far more clearly all the arguments they have put forward (plus I am certain you have previously read them) I also am puzzled by your question.
The amount of votes doesn't matter, it's more about their volume (the value in $$$).
I agree - but it does matter as an indication that a number of people showed interest in the article or story (or photo).
I do not think you will know what I am speaking of, but as a child I used to read a mag from the UK called Eagle. It was comics, with series like Dan Dare. The art style of your avatar reminds me of those comics (I mention it, because it makes me feel a bit nostalgic for a period 65 years in my past...)
I truly appreciate your taking the time to discuss it with me - thank you.