I really want to agree with you, and did read your first post. I'll read your 2nd one of course as well.
The problem Luke, is that those who joined early have a entirely different type of following then those who are joining now. If you start a new account and do not help it out with your reputation or by passing it on to buddies, you will find out quickly how VERY little traction you get, with the exact same articles you were posting the day before.
At this point, I have not sent any funds to the bots. I'll give it some time and we'll see if it gets going. I believe it does have some quality features, but perhaps I'm just a bit biased :)
It’s not about the articles. Tweeting to no one gets no interaction as well. You have to build a following as you create valuable content. It may be harder now, but these same complaints existed more than a year ago. Those who ignored it and continued building relationships and value did well. Others didn’t.
Certainly and I really am not complaining. In fact, I believe my following and reputation has grown very steadily for having joined only 4 months back.
Today when I post, it does get read by a few dozen, even with 1600+ followers. When I send it to a bot and get on the trending list, it gets read by a couple of thousand.
This of course is where the problem is. There is massive incentives. Not sure I have ever received a whale vote that was not a bot, but someday I will have a breakout article. This is what drives us all!!
I would love to see witnesses such as yourself take a little wind out of the bots sails by perhaps limiting concentrated delegations, reducing the author awards for large SP votes (logarithmic) , favoring instead the curation pool and most importantly perhaps putting the SBD peg (both directions) tools in place.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for listening! And of course, up vote, resteem or flag as you find fitting.
Thanks for giving some specific examples. Here are my thoughts on them.
How? We'd have to control what people can and can not do with their own STEEM power. Any attempt at controlling this would fail, IMO. If we set a limit on how much a single account can delegate they would easily create hundreds off accounts to get around this limitation (some have already done similar things).
Why would investors buy STEEM and power up if we further decrease their incentive to do so by decreasing the influence they have? Again, they would just create multiple accounts to get around this limitation anyway.
Not sure what you meant there?
I think this would be helpful, and I've had lengthy discussions with the community about it, but not everyone agrees it should be changed, especially not when SBDs are well above $1.
I've been on trending a handful of times naturally. It's nice, sure. But getting my moment of fame isn't why I'm here. I'm here to create content and build connections. With that goal in mind, things work out well and anything else is bonus.
Thanks for the great reply
In the same manner there is as 7 day cool down period, a particular account could not receive more than X amount of delegations in proportion to their investment. They would have to buy more steem to get X amount more in delegations. This limits how large a bidbot an can get without having even a greater stake in the platform, which will force them to analyze trash a bit closer.
If a large SP vote on a post was comparably much higher than the current total post value, more of that vote would go to the curators instead of the author -- in a formula similar to the 30 minute rule after a post is created. This would take away the ability for the bids to bots to be so profitable, yet still fully allow the normal vote flow to go nearly unchanged.
There are many options here that could be discussed.
Yes, the $1 SBD is a very arguable concept. In the long run, this would be very healthy for the platform and is how it was designed to stabilize itself.
I agree, I take great pleasure out of creating useful articles. Getting a paid a bit is a nice bonus, but I make a living elsewhere. It is the boost you get when an article does well that seems to give you confirmation that your work is worthy.
I'm not sure it will do that. To me, downvotes which we can all do right now would be much more effective if that's the end goal. Tools like this could help right now: https://steemwhales.com/clean-trending/ (Edit: looks like the URL changed. See this post for more info)
I like this idea. It would encourage large voters to go find low value posts to vote on in order to receive higher curation rewards. It could also lead to total crap getting large votes though. Interesting to consider all the unintended consequences this might have, but at first glance, I like it.
Thanks for looking at this. Even the first option has possibilities, just needs discussion and refinement.
On the large SP votes, more of the vote could also go straight SP instead SBD, again forcing more thought, less short term incentive and more investment into the platform.
Large SP voters would not likely vote on crap since, they 1) have to share the rewards with many others, and 2) the more investment into the platform, the more concern there is with quality
I'm going to read your trash control link tomorrow when I'm awake.
I have taken your suggestion as to not promoting my articles, even a little to heart and in-fact it really resonated with me as to why I am here on the platform at all and, what is the long term effect when everyone uses the bots "just a little"
The morphed into something .. not sure how it will be fully received, but what do you think
Maybe he can help take a little wind out of some rouge Witnesses like nextgencrypto! Instead of a platform elder, he is a real jerk who has appointed himself as a Steemit deity.
Very few Luke, very few.
bu (i') L/L (D) 0've t/h e (v) a L/L (h) u e w/e t ass k t (h/d) r 0/p e (n) d e/b t ass c 0/p i e(ye) d (h) 0 p e (n) d ~ ew/(h) e'ye i.d. (0) L(D) e (f) t ass (k) t 0/n (e) a. s/s (c) e/n t e'ye (i) t ~ u bu(e)ye (a) t
https://steemit.com/g0fig/@xubrnt/re-a-p-p-ea-l-e-ye-a-t