You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Introducing Verodato
Clvr is said to be paid by smartsteem.
Im with you on you using bots.
Im even encouraging people to overbid them.
It is frustrating that the folks with the power to fix things refuse to do so.
But i guess stinc wouldnt have made things this way if they were against abuse.
You saw me speculate it, but it was never confirmed.
It is paid by smartsteem as a fact.
The question is: for what?
Another fact is it fights spam.
Most people will lose if they will try to overbid them.
There are also people whom do not deserve to be crushed.
This spam bot made me softer on the rest, because I see how more dangerous and efficient it is.
This is the situation.
What do STINC have to do with it?
Their job is to maintain steemit.com and manage registrations.
I saw it in discord, too.
Stinc holds the keys to the github, no code is approved without their agreement.
Did you see this?
https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/blockchain-update-3-hardfork-20-and-release-19-4-appbase-statsd-and-rocksdb
Is it against abuse, or not?
I do know that personally, sneak bothered to try to destroy a few bots' reputations, rather than retrieve rewards to the reward pool when I presented an opportunity for him.
You can bet that if stinc approves it some insider will be the main beneficary.
Every other hardfork since @dan left has worked out this way.
Do you still believe that quadratic rewards was better than linear?
Not even for users of your size.
Why do you think that dan would have made things better than ned?
Neither is good, and there is not even a witness worth voting for.
I liked quadratic for encouraging popular content.
Each subsequent vote was worth more.
@smooth is worth voting for, if compromised by pragmatism.
@dan was against vote selling, and pro content driven rewards.
I guess it explains the meteoric rise of ozchartart.
His content was very popular.
A more robotic version of haejin with even less conviction.
It makes more sense than how I thought that it worked, and even then I assume it was computed by rshares.
And yet, even this way, it is much worse than linear rewards.
Quadratic rewards make the rich richer, and this is what you strive for.
And it makes the richest richer than the rest of the rich, and makes the poor poorer.
Smooth is adm, he does not fight spam and abuse, and is a waste of Steem.
He knew about abandi and did less in absolute terms (rshares) about it than I did, less than themarkymark did, and less than clvr/smartsteem did.
Adm delegates to steemcleaners, which is another waste of Steem.
For some time I voted for smooth, but as you can see, I have my witness slate clean now.
I also prefer to not vote for preminers.
Dan could still control steemit.
He cared so much that he willingly gave it away.
He was not ousted of it.
He quit it like he did Bitshares and like he will probably do with EOS in less than 3 years from now.
Quadratic rewards was much worse than better, and I made a thread about it.
The preminers werent selected by their ability to manage a blogging site with rewards, for sure.