Are you ready?
Steemit is a really big social experiment that seems to hinge on the code, not a community at all according to many. So, let's run with that and run an experiment. Not just any experiment though:
Steemit's biggest ever experiment!
From what I have heard, some people seem to think that the bidbot pull on the pool doesn't really make that much difference to other people's payouts. But for some background, the bidbots vote every 2.4 hours (10 full votes a day) with over 30+ million SP. So, that is +300 million SP in votes per day or +600M vests.
For some perspective, that is 10 x ~$5640 votes per day or, 56,400 SBD worth of pull on the pool every day. This gets distributed to ~1.5% of all votes per day. Also, bear in mind that these are paid for with ~45,000 liquid SBD.
We can test if this has any affect on the other 98.5% votes that aren't using bots.
There is another experiment ongoing at the moment called Burnpost being run by @smooth. The idea is to take SBD out of circulation to reduce the inflation and try to keep the price down. @smooth, I really like your experiments but, can't we do better? Yes. I repeat:
Steemit's biggest ever experiment!
Ready?
Ok. Lets kill two birds. Let's see if the pull on the pool can be affected AND lets burn a metric shit ton of SBD at the same time. If the bidbot operators are right, this experiement should have very little affect on them and if @smooth is right, we could see a reduction in SBD price.
I did say that this was Steemit's Biggest ever experiment so, lets get a little meta. The Steemit account hold roughly 44 Million SP in it which equates to a 100% vote of... $8300. 10 x is 83,000 SBD pull on the pool or approximately 50% more than all the known bidbots combined.
Let's Play.
@smooth creates 10 x Burnposts and the Steemit account votes every 2.4 hours on them (to keep max damage) and the SBD will be burned. this should be about as definitive of a test that is possible to see if this experiment has an effect.
The next question is, what happens to the bidbots when the pool that they have been drinking from is more than halved by a very, very thirsty king of whales? Well, this is going to effect everyone on the platform equally but according to many, the bidbots aren't really the ones that are lowering the price of other posts. If that is true, it should have very little effect on all of our earnings.
If 83,000 SBD being called from the pool each day doesn't have much of an effect on earnings then, the bidbots may not be so harmful to the entire ecosystem but, if it does?
This would be a pretty definitive test to illustrate just how this all works and, it is fair on everyone. How long would the experiment need to run before it is felt? I don't know but, perhaps some of the numbers people @crokkon, @paulag, @abh12345 might like to play around and do a hypothetical.
With only one account doing all of this, the numbers should be relatively easy to calculate and track and perhaps a few days or a week is enough. My limited knowledge assumption is that an 83,000 pull on the pool each day is going to have a very large effect on all earnings and, the return of the bidbots, at least at their current settings. The SBD burn is outside of my area totally but perhaps @smooth would like to comment.
Shouldn't experiments that should provide quite definitive evidence be encouraged at this early stage of the platform? Wouldn't it be awesome just to see @steemit vote at 100% 10 times a day for a week or so? Since it can be over a limited time and effects all accounts equally, this should be completely uncontroversial and, as everyone keeps saying, do with your stake as you please. @steemit has stake and this way there is no problem with suppression or promotion since all are affected equally and no one directly benefits.
Perhaps after this we would have clear evidence on various things and then we could create strategies based on what we have learned. With the visual and the nubers data available, we could also put an end to lots of the arguments over this or that and move on to actually building the community together. I am game, you?
@ned, got the keys handy?
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
Who is saying these things? The relative value of votes on the system has nothing to do with voting bots, it's just a % of how much SP is used to vote in total.
Of course voting bots comprise a very significant amount of the SP used for voting, but all that SP would still be used for voting even if bots didn't exist!
Do you think that if bots didn't exist all the whales that currently delegate to them would just say "ok i guess we'll just let our SP sit and not do anything!"?
I really don't understand why people think getting rid of voting bots would solve anything. I guarantee that if all the voting bots disappeared that nothing would change with regard to the problems they are blamed for.
The rewards pool share for votes would remain the same. Large stakeholders would still sell their votes, it would just be done in a non-transparent manner that's not available to the majority of users. And trending would still have the same "issues" that it does now. It might just not be as obvious what's going on to the average user.
Well, I know one huge user, the biggest account in fact that wasn't voting before leasing out its SP to bid bots. There were also a lot of other big ones that were curating instead and only earning curation rewards. You are right though, they were at a disadvantage to those that were selling votes off-site.
Of course, it has gone to the point where there is no going back anymore due to delegation, currently the people that are losing out are the ones that are not buying votes since the rewardpool is finite. What this means is that you either have to also start buying votes to compete with other users or you will be left with a smaller piece of the reward pool pie.
It seems to me that the only solution at this point is to encourage everyone to buy votes on their quality content and to eliminate the easy rewards just for running a bid bot.
This.
The Catch-22 situation of the so-called promotional element bot operators have tried to use as PR has been reached.
It's "Do or Die" mostly nowadays. Do throw your earned SBD away at somebody who just is slightly more connected and more apt at maintaining code.
If there were no bid bots grey operations would still happen but on a much lower scale and, finally, we could hope for investors with a mid- to long-term focus again, rather than the quick buck grab Wild Wild West this has become. But, obviously, that's logic the short term profit grabbers are not interested in.
Manual curators needed and a bot that will overpay to out support the maximisation bots. If a manual curator thinks it is worth more than the bid, bump it higher. Be picky and with enough SP, trending would have quality content providers that deserve the payouts, bidbot or not. Not that Trending matters anyway.
This is not going to go anywhere is it... wild wild west is the law of code.
Yep. Last year before mass bidbots, when rando whale was the only real game and good for newbs who outgrew it eventually, it was a very different place here. Can it return to that now that they ate the "apple"? Uncertain, but why we don't just turn off self voting and end at least half our major grievances? That never flies and i get a million reasons why back, but its undeniable, kill self voting, and then people will have to work a lot harder to do those back door whale sales and shit. We can't really effectively kill bots ever no matter what anyway, we'll just make them less accessible, I suppose. and deterrents stop a large percentage of lazy people. The truly determined will find their hacks anyway, but lots less will.
Self voting, is a huge problem in terms of pool drain, why do we NEVER discuss that, and lean on the old trope, *well the investors, and their stake, and they can do whatever and well, after all those same whale investors are or "own" the top 20 who could make any of this true anyway..." blah blah blah
turn off self voting, watch magic happen. That's my prediction. (Oh but they will make sockpuppets!) and yep they will, some of them. But less of them.
Or you know, figure out communities, implement something like eos constitutions and turn people loose to screw it up for themselves in their own houses...
Basically, just do something already. Because looking at the roadmap, and talks at SteemFest(2), this place is always more becoming vaporware roadmaps bc.
2016 open
2017 open
2018 "more info about smts, the next thing we wont finish or do right here:[link]"
How does buying more votes 'eliminate rewards' for running a vote bot?
They get paid upfront for selling 'our' commons.
If the large accounts are not going to act responsibly then it is up to the rest of us to do so.
When the bots dont have customers we will have won.
The exact opposite of what is appearing to be an orchestrated push to get folks to join in on the rape.
Many former denouncers of the rape are now coming out in favor of 'if you can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em', enough at the same time that my coordination alarm is clanging.
The reward pool is(was) intended for creators of 'good' content, not as roi for investors.
Stinc appears to prefer roi for investors over 'good' content for the blockchain.
So, they enabled reward pool rape.
When they run out of bigger fools to support the price they will change something, until then roi it is.
The resident creative genius, @dan, had already been through this.
His answer was the n2 and enough votes, 40, to make self voting more labor/resource intensive.
Stinc ran him off and chose scammers over legitimate users.
Yea, stinc!
When the bigger fools are gone all those folks with their bigger slice of the pie will dump, take their roi, and move on to rape something else.
Cant wait for that to happen,...
By providing a bid bot that doesn't cost. Its kind of retarded that we try to create middlemen jobs on a blockchain network which generally goes against it. People are earning a ton of rewards while not even giving a shit what votes are being cast on that are bought. Its time to change that, make buying votes more profitable, check that they aren't abused and give a higher ROI for delegating to these services without taking a fee for hosting it.
But that doesn't stop the buyer from getting rewards that were not community voted to him.
Buying the reward pool is raping it.
It was intended to reward content creators with money voted to them by the community.
No votes, no money.
Yes?
There is absolutely nothing else to expect than a proportional reward pool decrease for everyone else than @Steemit and some whales dumping their coins because they don't want to stay to witness another Steemit mishap.
If you didn't know there is an common shared understanding that Steemit would not vote with it's ninja-mined stake.
Bidbots have expenses close to 0 and are paid mostly as % relative to their SP, and the amount being their proportion of the global SP utilization. They are also depending on how people are willing to risk vesting in exchange for a % profit or in the case of @promobot extra exposure.
Shameless plug: @Promobot return 100% of the payment it receives to people delegating to it. No need to sign-up anywhere, delegate and get paid daily.
I actually don't agree with this entirely. As a first order effect that is entirely correct of course. However, I believe that for social, community, and ecosystem development reasons there are stakeholders who actually do want to see certain valuable contributors rewarded. When the reward pool is knocked down a few pegs in size and becomes less of a free money free-for-all for everyone, the resulting scarcity will force a reexamination of priorities. When people who care a lot about Steem are asking why they can't reward some very effective promotional campaign or development project with more than $100 and the answer is clearly too much the money being siphoned off by bid bots and the like, what happens next? Likely more consensus on the need to aggressively direct rewards where they do the most good instead of just everyone grabbing money and Steem getting real value for the rewards is little more than an afterthought.
It would be like demoing the effect of reward siphoning to expose a problem while it can be explained and understood rather easily.
Instead Steemit could communicate some more guidance and act as a though leader. That should have just as much effect with way less contention and should be prioritized over this.
Oh, I'm not at all suggesting this actually be done. I don't think Steemit should be using the ninja-mined stake to vote (not even to support @burnpost, which I of course believe operates in a generally beneficial manner, and if I didn't I wouldn't be running it), and indeed shouldn't be weaseling around that by delegating it to others who vote on their behalf (which, unfortunately, they are).
My comment was addressed as what I see as some of the beneficial indirect effects of constraining the reward pool from its current size which I see as just inviting a scramble by many people to grab the 'free money'. In fact none of it is free. Steem stakeholders are paying for it twice, once in inflation and the again in lost opportunity to actually do something useful with that money. But yes I agree some leadership could also help.
@smooth, Do you really think most average users even know the size of the reward pool or how it works? Most of them still think stinc pays them for being here or some magical thing. So I'm not sure 90% of the users here would even understand this conversation, let alone stop being driven by "free money" promises because of it.
You aren't wrong about the "whys" but I think the experiment will prove no change in majority user behavior.
Honestly, we all keep yapping about potentials, when turning off self voting for once and for all, would quite literally end nearly every problem but bot rings and voting circlejerks, which are NEVER going to be completely eradicated, anymore than anyone has completely eradicated collusion from poker games yet in 200 years.
That's just not possible. In fact a huge portion of the voting power now goes through bots (a while ago I was told 30% and it may be even higher now) which means many people it isn't even literal self voting any more. Stakeholder delegates to bot then pays bot to vote for stakeholders posts (possibly on a different account). Stakeholder then gets the money back from the bot.
Even if this particular loophole were plugged there are an infinite number of ways to obscure self voting.
Not really, but larger stakeholders who allocate most of the money do.
LOL true!
I don’t belong on this thread but have to comment.
What?! You burst my bubble. All this time I thought SteemitInc was paying for my penny payouts!! What is a gal to do now? 😉
Interesting topic of discussion!
Isn't this breaking the common-shared agreement on technicality? It seems that code is law though so technicality is the law.
And why isn't it happening (other than the excuse that it is interfering with an 'organic' system)?
This community is not very organic and is becoming much less so considering it is now largely a blind pay to play platform. What would have pushed this post up the ridiculous scale is if I had voted myself into trending.
This is about as trash post as my heart will let me get but, it does create discussions that clarifies certain things for me and those who stop by my blog, from people who are invested heavily in the platform. You might not agree with the proposal (I don't agree with the proposal) but, the platform is floundering and there is so much that isn't seen, shared or being done.
The core problems I have with the bidbots is, blind voting, lack of engagement with the majority of it, narrowing of rewards/value heavily biased to those who already have stake. It might be idealistic but this was meant to be a community that backed value based on content the community found value in, not the author which is what is happening now. What happened to manual curation? ~25% not enough to engage in the community cosidering on top of that there is the likely appreciation of Steem value to come?
I self-vote now, it is my stake. Fine. But, using the bots is calling the community to vote on me also (blindly). I am saying that my post is worthy of community support and proving the worth by ordering them to support. That is not community consensus, that is dictatorship of a kind and the ones delegating are supporting all kinds of things they may not agree with (say, if I had used bots you delegate to to bump this up a bit).
There is a space for the bidbots but, I do think there needs to be a massive ramping up of community/manual curation on them still before flags are involved as flags come with no reward and are therefore unlikely.
There has to be some community engagement on content (which is all we have) to call this a community doesn't there? Otherwise, just call it an auction site and be done with it.
... Yeah, I am idealistic and not very good at maximising my own value at the cost of others.
I did not but assumed it quite early on.
So, everyone should delegate all of their SP to bidbots and sit back for passive earnings except those who want to use bidbots to earn?
Also, shouldn't this all be in the FAQ under investment options or something? Perhaps in the UI there could be a dropdown list of all registered bots and people could delegate directly at signup. For those that buy in, we could streamline the process and direct them straight to where they need to go to maximize their investment.
On a side note: What if some willing bidbot's did similarly to you and put say, half a vote aside to flag the TA? Those that do not agree could undelegate the bidbot of course and move to one that doesn't flag but, wouldn't that return at least some percentage to the pool as a community service? It would cost 5% of profits max but, would likely take 2% if all bots joined in considering the 30+ Mil combined SP
sorry, 3am brain here, remind me what TA means again please?
Technical Analysis (@Haejin)
the SadKitten bot needs to be stopped it only helps the whales, everyone knows that,AND when any post has a upvote that shows a amount besides zero that the post will most like then be viewed by someone and maybe even upvoted, and everyone who does up vote get a slice of the pie, the down votes hurt not only the person who upvotes their own post but others who also get a part of it. and when the coins are devided up by steem the only one who get any are the select inner circle aka the whales, which is the only reason that the sadkitten bot is really their, why not flag all the other bots out there who always upvote the whales the ip and vpn always show that the bots are from select whales even now some whales are now changing often the ip and vpn to cover ther butt, steem was a good idea at first then the greed and bots and now even more sad kitten proves it greed and censorship to keep the peasent poor while the rich get richer, greed is greed and nothing more and it will be the death of steem as people flee and will not want steem
FYI, @burnpost does not (currently) burn SBD
The SBD received by @burnpost as rewards is sold on the market in exchange for STEEM, which places it into circulation and directly exerts downward price pressure on SBD (and upward on STEEM). The STEEM is then powered up into SP and designated for future burning, ensuring that it will never reenter the market (putting further long-term upward price pressure on STEEM).
Clearly you do not have a good understanding of what is actually going on and how things work. I would suggest you take that up before making ridiculous proposals. Even if intended as an attempt at humor/sarcasm/irony, that works a lot better if you know what you are talking about before you try.
(@burnpost would start burning SBD, and would even using its STEEM/SP to buy SBD for the purpose of burning, if SBD were to drop below $1. Obviously that is not the case now.)
Thanks for coming in @smooth and explaining it. I have been asked several times about it and I haven't been able explain it well enough so, this will hopefully help.
I think we could agree that on the scale of Steemit, this is only mid-range ridiculous.
I am not a very funny person in writing but, I thought the title would suggest some level of humor but, I think only the people who would read my stuff often might realise it.
Although I don't know what is going on, people keep asking why Steemit doesn't get involved so it seems there is a breakdown in communication which is no surprise considering the UI, low-level of interaction between groups and Steemit's and many others in the know's unwillingness to publicly address some of the issues the average user of the platform faces.
It seems that lately, the only time people seem willing to enter conversations is at misrepresentation and challenge. For the many, many small users, understanding can't develop because there is no clear source explaining it. I don't know if communities will help or not but, the current system has been broken for a very long time.
Anyway, thanks again :)
LOL good point!
"I think we could agree that on the scale of Steemit, this is only mid-range ridiculous."
That is the funniest thing I have read all day, so you got ONE bit of the joke across pretty well! :D
:)
I think the discussions can be fun and there is no need for animosity or anger, especially when people are openly and earnestly trying to do their best at working things out.
Are folks voting more than100mv?
Does linear rewards simply require addition to reach the total mv voted?
Is it true that all votes less than .02 are rounded down?
I was told that the vests awarded by every vote were credited, is this not true?
Currently rshares (which are derived from SP/vests, vote power, and vote weight) are credited from every vote as long as the vote does not fall below the dust vote threshold, otherwise the vote is rejected altogether.
I don't understand the question about 100mv
How much is the dust level in sbd?
The 100mv question derives from wanting to bring back the n(something), i figure that is as good a place to start as any.
If only 100mv are voted the large accounts wont have unreasonable disparity with the newbs.
As more dolphins are allowed to grow that limit can be raised.
But clearly, free reign on the whales has led us here.
With dolphins to spread the rewards farther the whales will have less disproportional influence on who is allowed to grow.
It wont only be their golden boys, it will also be those organically popular with the community.
So, the question was of how much impact that was going to have on the large accounts.
If they are currently voting 1500mv the impact is going to be a tougher pill to swallow than if they only vote 5 or 600mv.
So, i was wondering how to determine how many mvests are being voted.
Do i add their votes up and divide by mv to find a percentage of how many they are voting?
Under the n2 50k sp gave a vote worth x, depending on the votes before it, and votes could be measured by that number.
Is it the same with linear?
A 50k sp vote is worth x and votes larger than that number excede 100mv?
Now that ive put it to paper, that is how it has to be, huh?
Pardon me while i go play with steemworld's sp simulator,...
If you could give me that dust number in sbd, that would be helpful.
Edit
Oh crap, might need to raise that to 500mv to make the pill a little easier to swallow,....
There are actually two dust values. On individual votes, anyone with less than about 1.2 SP (2500 VESTS) will have a 100%/100% vote rejected by the system. If vote power and/or vote weight are below 100%, more SP is needed to avoid rejection. For example, a 50%/100% vote would require about 2.4 SP to avoid immediate rejection, etc.
The second dust limit is on payout. Rewards which total less than about 0.02 SBD are not paid out they are just retained by the system.
Man, i could've been banging that drum all along.
Well, it will get hit hard now.
I had experienced the first dust rejection when i first got on the platform, so i assumed this was what was referred to.
Now i know why a certain asswipe of a whale put .02 votes on about 30 of my posts, he was making a joke.
The thought had occured to me at the time, but i thought the vests were still crediting to my totals.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now i guess we wait for the rapists to run out of bigger fools and crash the price so that we can look at changing the reward curve to something that entices mass adoption instead of reward scammers.
.
Why would the reward pool size change? As far as I can tell, that's about as fixed as anything gets in the steem blockchain, being absolutely the inflationary rate.
I don't think that any kind of percentage reduction in the value of SBD would affect to the bid bots more than everybody else. In fact, reducing the relative portion of vote values for non-bid bot users would probably have the result of driving more people to bid bots in order to attempt to get a larger slice. After all, it clearly works as a distributive process and if the size of the pool shrinks, the inhabitants fight harder for the remainder.
.
If you are having trouble getting your head around the system, doesn't that tell of a little too much complexity and room for gaming the system? There are always going to be loop holes but this is one large account voting massively, and still it is hard to visualize. When there are thousands of much smaler accounts effectively doing the same thing in many assorted ways, it creates an entanglement that makes transparency near impossible.
Does this mean that with 30+ million voting (approx 65% of Steemit) All votes are reduced ~10% since they are maximising all of their voting power? So ~750,000 votes per day are reduced by 10% so 1.5 percent can have very large (relatively) votes? I am not sure that makes sense but you might understand the concept.
You tell me but it will likely affect them equally however, does that mean they have to reduce the prices? or take less profit? I don't know.
I think a large part of the arguments would end if there was more sensitivity on what they voted upon, meaning perhaps a high level of manual curation, very strict whitelists that get reviewed or what about, invites to purchase votes where if content is good enough, a manual says, 'this post is whitelisted'? Would that increase the incentive to produce higher quality and deeper engagement again whilst still offering high returns for bots/delegates? I don't know... but a few more humans involved might be nice.
I read the post, and the comments, Lots of debate and discussion. It's an experiment that is being talked about being run. That is all. I have seen competing thoughts on the proposed experiment, some say it doesn't need to be done that we already know what the outcome would/will be. But there are polar opposite opinions. So I say run it, see what happens and who was right and who was wrong. At least we will have a semi-firm answer.
THe reality though is if we as a community want to control the bots, then we need to be given the tools to control them. Tool number one for me would be "I don't like bots" they are all banned from my post, even being called by commenters to upvote their comments. In other words if I have a bot banned it can not do anything on my page/post. Period. That's a Capital Period.
Let the consumer decide who they want to visit their page/post. Give us the ability to Block people, not just mute them. Part of freedom of expression is being able to determine what you want to read or look at. So my blocking someone from viewing my content is not Censorship. Hustler magazine and Playboy magazine can not arbitrarily mail you their magazine and then scream Censorship when you refuse delivery.
This should be a tool included in the package. I think there are too many tools missing.
And yes, this post is a moot point but, people don't seem to realise what is going on so this would show them in a day, maybe two I guess.
I'm pretty much a realist when it comes to the downvote, the whales and the long time users really do not want to see a change to it, but I think a blocker would be a great way to prevent not only the spread of spam, but the spread of the tiny URL scammers. Post owners bock them no one sees their post, so no one clicks on the link. of course The scam busters would need to be able to have access and see that post, so a lot to think about on it.
My sentiment exactly. Was hoping to get through just one day where I didn't see a "let's fix it" this way post or a "this or that" post will cause Steemit to fail in the long run.....been here since January and all I ever see is all talk and no action.
Tell it to the folks with the keys, all this was known from before steem went live, but stinc chose scamming over legit users, so things are like this because this is how the key holders want it to be.
:D
I would love to see what happens if this took place - just for the S's and the G's.
I'll be checking in to see what's been written tomorrow morning and shall pass this on to a few who may have a comment.
Burn baby burn!
It would be pretty cool to see such a large scale experiment at steemit. At least, it should return something usable to build upon that is clear enough that consensus is easier to reach.
Exactly right. We are all seemingly just guessing at present. An experiment would give us something to analysis and evaluate.
lol, well that would be interesting.
I don't think the bots have 0 impact, I think the reward pool is allocated by voting power owned by investors. Each investor can choose to rent, lease, sell or use their voting power. Nobody has a moral obligation to build the community or the site. As proven by Smooth. Also, so far he isn't burning anything. He is just selling SBD and buying Steem. I do the same thing and I curate besides.
It would be pretty damn fun to see I reckon. There are some other experiments I would like to see also. The bidbots could put aside 50% of a vote and... bye bye TA. At least there would be some community value in that.
We've already got clear evidence that this is f'n damaging to minnows?
The whale experiment proved that idling big sp helped minnows and unleashing it harmed them.
You might as well join @timcliff's call to demonitize all small accounts that dont find favor with accounts over an arbitrary size, because that is what you just asked for.
Just as sanctions on a country harm the people, and not the rulers, of that country most, so too would this idiocy.
Is that your unstated goal?
What part of 'when large sp votes, all small sp votes lose value' are you having a hard time understanding?
You seem to have missed the point.
I didnt miss the implications, though.
Does this also happen if large SP votes small across a really wide section, eg. 0.50 sized?
Under the n2 distribution disparity can be mitigated by smaller votes.
Under linear rewards only volume can mitigate this math.
Under either the more sp that sits idle the greater the influence of the sp that does vote.
If only one vote is cast in the given time then it gives 100% of the reward pool regardless of how much sp the voting account has.
If a vote of 100sp and a vote of 10000 sp are cast, 100 times as much reward goes to the larger vote.
If 'the whales' all vote, the minnows get pushed out of the pool.
Ignorance of this fact is what has led us here.
The vote bots/whales all know this is true.
The golden boys dont want to know.
And the minnows that buy in get screwed.
What do you mean by volume? Volume of the amount of places it's going?
By volume i mean the number of votes cast.
If a large amount of sp votes only once it takes less of the reward pool.
Whereas ten votes takes the full allotment.
Im pretty sure he means volume of voters.
1 million 1 dollar voters offsets 1 single million dollar voter.
problem is there arent that many of the former and enough of the latter to make this example not even close to ratio scale.
Yes, when we have 100k dolphins distributing votes the whale votes will have less impact.
Presuming those 100k aint all golden boys selected by the whales.
Oh, okay.
But just to sum up my brief intervention about worthy 'experiments' here.
"ANY sort of beast, entity, insect, microbe and/or fucking germ (AI or not. High SP or not) that within a LIVING COMMUNITY Our Community can't READ, is too lazy to READ or outrightly refuse to READ must be":
¡Excommunicated, disallowed, suspended, execrated, banned, abolished & disappeared once and for all!:
ANY ability to vote if they haven't READ thoroughly first the content of a post previously before cast a vote.
Unfortunately, the world has gone at least for the time being where people care enough to read.
That would be a great experiment! Really curious how this would evolve. It is really hard to make a prediction, but I guess the bots would win!
THey would have to adjust considerably I think including their prices and margins as Steemit would be taking a massive slice of the pool they access and making it unavailable. Essentially, Steemit would squeeze everyone into a little corner of the pool. The bidbots will still have the same percentage access to the reduced pool size but, that would mean returns are also affected. ...I think.
The burning of SBD would be interesting too
The burning of SBD could be a good thing, because if I understood it correctly, it is a depth from the system to us. The lower this gets, the better. Correct me if I am wrong!
Still people find it easier these days to make a profit with bot investments! I do wonder where this perception comes from! Less people are maybe using the bid bots, maybe the transparency bot has something to do with it!
Less people are making profits but the profits continue for a narrow group. In the end, it will be a duopoly and then a monopoly. Of course, it would never get that for before it all collapsed.
While I don’t want to undermine a business plan, I wont cry if it does collapse! Maybe some more power will be used to upvote new Steemians to be discover!
Not all bots are bad, but the bid and flat rate bots may vaporize!
Atleast this way we'll be sure of some uncertain things. Thank you for theb informative post.
This would be great see and in ways show that @Steemit has an interest in how the network is preforming.
That sound like a quite interesting experiment.
To bad that it is most likely impossible to happen.
I am just a month joining steemit, reading your writing I'm surprised too, how big the potential of steemit, and that potential is open to all steemians. Thanks for informative writing Mr. @tarazkp
Wow! It would be a nice thing to know the outcome of these experiments.
This is mainly a way point to helping my research about bidbots
Hi Taraz. Interesting thought process. I think it will start a war as a lot of toes won't be stepped on but they will be squished. Don't honestly know what affect it will have as I don't fully understand this place yet. Let us put it this way it is not straight forward on here.
Awesome, experiment is good for development and evaluation, this is one clear step into more clarifications, and i look forward to more of this discussion, lets see what happens next. Burning of sbd might be quite interesting
Man I've got a lot to learn. I have no idea what you're talking about! Better get reading...
I'm excited to see the conclusion of this experiment now after reading your post, where is @ned anyway?