You know what, this is really fucking clever. I have to admit, I mostly agree with @aggroed. However, your solution is very similar to adblock/ublock. I think if it can be implemented as an option then those who run the various portals could choose whether or not to implement it on a case by case basis.
I would strongly urge caution with this idea. If implemented, it should be a soft rollout as an option, as opposed to the new standard. I say this because if the first condenser implemented it as a new standard it could lead to a large selloff of steem by those who invest in bidbots and see a loss in profits. This could cause the value of steem to go down.
Basically, if you want the free market to decide whether or not this idea would be a success you need a programmer to create a condenser that can pull it off either as an option or the standard. If the experiment is a success the larger models will no doubt emulate it. If it's bad for the value of steem they won't.
Thanks! We (aggroed and I) obviously see things a bit differently overall, in that in my experience, there are many wealthy people who would be very interested in investing in Steem if it were a valid competitor to major social networks. As long as the retention is so low, they won't go anywhere near it and based on my experience with new users, the bid bots and unbalanced playing field is one of the primary causes for them not participating. In fact, I have previously had several meetings with billionaire investors during a period in my life that I worked on a startup and I got to see how they think - they were in no way interested in short term exploitation of users, of the form that bid bots participate in - they want to support creativity that exceeds the levels already in the marketplace among the current 'top dogs'. They want this because they understand that such creativity and evolution is what humanity most needs and values. As a student of business analysis and system engineering, I don't feel good calling bid bots a 'business' to be honest, they are just exploiting a design flaw and failure to uphold the terms and conditions of the site/software. For me, a valid business adds value within the context it operates - but bid bots really just bypass the context and system design for the purpose of personal enrichment without any need for actual creativity or true usefulness.
I have no problem with doing a test on a less well used interface/domain, but I don't think that is a problem anyway since Steemit.com only adds a new feature on every 'blood moon' anyway ;)
Well, I think bidbots are a genuine business on the blockchain. It's the onus of the condenser to make them irrelevant if they dare to do so. They could do this with your idea but the people who run the first portal to the blockchain are also wealthy steemians.
So they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they made a move that created an investor problem. I'm not saying with any certainty that your idea would do that, which is why this experiment should be conducted on a new condenser.
You may be right that some wealthy folks wouldn't invest based on their perception of this blockchain. However, for the most part when investors invest they do so to make a profit. Any investment outside of making a profit is more akin to charity IMO. If they tell you otherwise, they might be gas-lighting ya. The only way to know would be to have access to their portfolio and see what they invest in and why. A lot of time your run of the mill "philanthropists" are doing so for tax deduction purposes (AKA self-interest).
I would encourage your billionaire buddies to be the change they'd like to see on the blockchain. Set up a not for profit business and curate good content. They could pay people to do just that, and it would cause the value of steem to go up because more people would join the blockchain and create good content for the sole purpose of getting a valuable upvote from said billionaire.
In summary, a billionaire curator would cause more people to invest in Steem because the billionaires investment would result in the value of steem rising. It would also create an environment where new users would join simply for the chance of their quality content being curated by a billionaire. That's what I'd call a 360° win : -)
Yes, I am talking about venture capital people and private wealth that looks at Facebook and asks "How can I better that and become even richer?" - Not that I personally think that such aims in life are aligned with humanity's best possible outcomes, but that is how they often think anyway. The logic is that by giving 'the people' what they want/need, then the network grows and profits increase. The question then is "Do people need bid bots? Or do they need something more?". Facebook's evolution shows clearly to me that people do indeed need and want many things beyond 'buying votes' - many would rather stay on facebook than come here, even though they make literally nothing on facebook. Why? Because they feel connected there and they feel they have some power over their experience - some customisation appeal - they can make a 'home' there on their profile and even though the whole platform is a charade of exploitation in other ways, many people still think they have power there and so they stay.
If I were new to this platform, I would analyse the amount of money needed to literally buy my way to the 1st page and would then laugh and walk away. The vast majority of people are never going to even think of paying hundreds of dollars just to have their post on the trending page here - so it is mostly only users who have been here a long time and who have a fair amount of steem, or newer users with their own wealth that will consider bid bots a 'useful business'. Why would it be a useful business? ONLY if you know your own posts aren't really so full of 'brain'. If you can't compete on a balanced playing field (paying field?) then what does that say about your content?
Read the white paper (as serious investors will do) and you will the entire system is designed around 'proof of brain' and so it should be protected as if it is sacred. Yet so many deny this and for some reason can't see beyond the short term situation they experience currently. It is not surprising since they fear losing their money and don't know what would replace bid bots as a 'business' for investors. In reality, with actual marketing (which has never really happened in an organised way) there could be a massive change in direction for the better here. People only have so much patience of such things though and I know of numerous competitors who are chomping at the bit to replace Steem, including it's original inventor himself who has publicly stated he literally wants to obliterate steem like some kind of unwanted child.
For these and many other reasons, Steem NEEDS alternative approaches and experiments to find out what works best and this is a great one I feel.
Posts that get regular votes or even high value votes doesn't necessarily in all cases prove that proof of brain is involved. You've got to take into consideration wealth classes and reciprocity that people generally tend to engage in whether they do so consciously or unconsciously. It's natural at times to be "nice" to people who are "nice" to you. Call it circle jerking call it whatever, reciprocity is somewhat baked into the cake of human nature.
We also have various systems on the platform, voting trails and the like and trails that follow trails. Even I follow voting trails, right now I'm probably voting on someone's content that I haven't even read. In this case I manually upvoted you, yet had I not you would have received my vote regardless to a lesser degree.
Point being, just because a post gets votes that doesn't necessarily mean that proof of brain was used in the case of each and every vote. Also, to suggest that everyone who uses or has ever used a bidbot is doing so because they have low quality posts would be inaccurate. Many people use bidbots for the exact opposite reason.
In the case of @smartsteem you'll find a whole lot of folks who use their service for the purpose of boosting quality content. Obviously it's subjective, but if you boost a shit post you run a high risk of getting downvoted and or trolled in the comment section. The cool part about the responsible bidbot operators is that they blacklist shit posters.
Whether it be in the form of voting trails or bidbots -- the fact of the matter is that automation changed the very nature of the blockchain. The technology is a double-edged sword if you ask me. Some see the bid bots as a bad thing, I both agree and disagree with that statement depending upon the post that is boosted. Some see the curation trails as a good thing. I both agree and disagree with that statement depending upon the post that is boosted.
Also, steemians don't only use bots to hit the trending. People come to steem and they find their writing niche and many times they're using the bots to simply rank higher in specific tags which is far more easy to accomplish than it is to hit the trending page. All that aside, I think your idea makes for a good experiment, one that needs to be conducted and if there is a mass exodus and people choose that condenser over the first one then it's highly likely that STINC will respond accordingly, as good ideas and successful strategies are highly contagious.
If Dan can create a better model, I say more power to him. STINC can adapt or die. Competition is what creates greatness. Just imagine what the computer market would be if there were no competition. If Dan does do it better, I'm sure someone will create a condenser that emulates that better model. In this brave new world of all things technology and internet there is one key maxim that holds true. Adapt or die. Fakebook is going to die, they've commit suicide by engaging in censorship. They bled out some last quarter and they will continue to do so in the next one.
Yes, that's true.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with reciprocity.
Yes, so you are describing something like a 'proof of popularity' factor. Does popularity always equal brain? Absolutely not!
In my experience, people who use bidbots when their posts are some of their best (which I do sometimes), do so because they have no other way to gain exposure. The driving force behind that dynamic is that there are already so many other posts using bidbots. I am saying that I don't think this all got started by people with the best posts since they should have already been having success at reaching the top spots anyway. In actuality, I started experimenting with Booster very early on - mainly because I was actually making profit just from using it AND it was boosting my posts... So it would have been a bit dumb not to use it. However, I had no idea where things were headed then!
On balance, I would rather have an environment where I stand some chance of trending on merit alone, than one where I have a guaranteed chance of trending only by spending money.
I just get frustrated to see so many people behind an exciting system that helps so many people, yet so little intention to hold balance for new users and new 'brain'. The 'old' world is full of pyramid hierarchies and people trying to control those below them out of fear of losing their position. I would like to think that 'proof of brain' ultimately proves this to be a poor choice!
I feel ya man. Putting the genie back in the bottle (and I think that's what your trying to do) can prove challenging. It will only work on whichever condenser implements it. I'd like to see a whole lot more experimentation with the various portals.