You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proof of no brain
@freedom has a large share in STEEM, and there is no doubt his delegations to bid-bots are hurting his total stake value. Most likely he hasn't realized it, or just doesn't care, or does it on purpose.
the solution is: Dan buys part of Ned's shares of Steemit Corporation (even if he needs to pay a high value for it), he gets the control of Steemit Corporation and, with their SP, starts flagging posts promoted by bid bots.(with prior warning of course)....Steem was well designed, perfectly planned but Ned decided to hear the crowd to do what is popular and not what is right, and screwed the system.
Ok, but in any case, do you really think, you can persuade someone like this author (https://steemit.com/steem/@ammar0344/why-steem-is-lossing-its-ranking) to stop using bid-bots?
Nobody in their right mind would probably read his posts and he knows it, so he would continue to buy votes.
The only way I see, is to change the system in that way, where human curators would have a far superior reward than those buying votes, selling votes or self-voting.
What if I couldn't vote on my own post or any account I delegate to or receive a delegation from? What if the rules for bid bots were the same?
I really like your idea of the 50% curation rule. I'd like for it to work for bidbots in favour of the bidder too. Like if I upvote this other user's post, I'd receive close to a half of what I spent. That could happen if there is only one bidbot and Steem manages it.
The People of Steem needs to become more generous.
everything here is built on generosity, having a singular bot's a bad idea, but you wouldn't understand, having more rules doesn't make things better or simpler, it complicates and destroys free enterprise.
The people are quite generous, they run servers, make apps, produce content, vote, distribute content, make bots that do all of that, ... it seems like you aren't appreciating the good work, want more and therefore we keep having problems.
My point is that if you create just to get monetary value, you are missing the point, @valued-customer said it best
Ahem, can you be more condescending?
I am appreciating "good work" but "good work" doesn't directly correlates to "good for the platform".
But I wouldn't understand. /s
Keep wearing your pink glasses.
fair point, I'm sorry, with some hindsight and without the same emotional state I was in last week, I can say it would foster some generosity, if you were getting back 50% of what you gave, you might be more willing to give rather than keep and "reinvest" because you have to pay for your delegation.
I just don't like bidbots in general, in technical terms there can't be a single bid-bot unless we vote for that and make a fork which has never happened. I think it over-complicates the platform if money is just going left and right, that's what curation is supposed to be, but people are lazy to do it by hand, technically curation projects are a better way to reward content than direct payments for votes, that just brings a chasm between the people that don't want to use them and the people that want the benefits, mainly inflated numbers...
I'm sure I can be more condescending, so thanks for pointing it out. I'm not trying it's just me lacking experience in communicating properly.
Thanks for coming back to write this. It's appreciated and shows you're human.
We'll just keep flagging him...
for fun. lolAs it stands, the lack of flagging makes the entire platform look scammy. It makes everything looks like "give me a dollar, get two back".
Agree that we need more flags in here.
of course individual shareholders will do what is better for them individually......we can only hope for good actions for players that, with their actions, can change the game and that cannot put their steem power easily in the market without screwing the price of it(Steemit Corporation)
It's been free money for Freedom, I'm sure he's gotten more out of here than he ever dreamed.