The changes that were introduced with HF19 gave rise to a new pay for exposure economy. Community approval can now be bypassed easily and what we see on trending is the result of this. You are contributing to this economy with your own service - so what is the point you want to make with this post exactly?
Actually, most of trending is Adsactly, Jerry Banfield, Haejin, Utopian, Sweetssj, none of which is the result of Bid Bots (yes I know Jerry is a bid bot, but his trail is more than enough to trend him). The majority of the posts on trending are the same authors and the result of vote circles and personal steem power and nothing to do with bid bots.
Bid bots are promotional tools, aka advertising. Like every platform on the Internet (Google, Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo, Bing, Etc.) those who pay are promoted and have much more visibility.
The ones who abuse it (with spam, scams, fraud, plagiarism, and some other form of abuse) I address by blacklisting, something other bots don't actively do.
The amount of posts in trending as a result of bid bots is a small percentage, and even of those, they would have been on trending without it as they already have hundreds of dollars worth of votes.
I have no problem if someone uses a bid bot to boost to trending, my bot or another. That's how every media platform in the world works, pay for promotion, get seen. What I do have a problem the amount of garbage and spam on this platform (80-90%?) and how established vote circles dominate trending regardless of quality.
Proof of brain here is totally broken, so saying that is what the platform is about and how it should work is a moot argument as unless your cute, pay off people, have enough steem power to create a big voting circle, you won't get noticed in all the noise ( remember that 80-90%).
No need to defend your service against me. I questioned the intent of your post, not the service that you are providing. I accept the existence of bid bots and I can even see reasonable use cases for them. Still, bid bots add another vector to bypass community approval (or proof of brain if you wish) and thus I find it strange if you complain about an outcome that you are actually enabling.
True, as of now, voting circles and other sort of deals extract significantly more from the reward pool compared to the aggregate of bid bots.
Thanks for your reply!
When I started @buildawhale there were very few bots, and now there are a ridiculous amount of bots and more coming daily.
This the result of a lot of things, but I think a lot of it has to do with low morale and the fact this is seen as the only profitable action on Steem right now.
As for why I did the post, mainly because I just snapped. Got sick of the huge voting circles getting free passes to trending, while exploiting the system. I knew people would bring up the bot angle and would be the primary focus, but it really isn't even remotely close the root issues going on.
I wanted to start a discussion, and unless I am on trending, I don't have the influence to do that. So like any good marketer, I bought it.
I make sure I didn't overdo it, I could have easily put it at #1 spot on trending for days, but I made sure it was high enough to be seen but not high enough to stick.
Well, I think those who followed you in doing what you started doing early on shouldn't be blamed for having a low morale. Under current circumstances bid bot providers are doing what is economically sound to do. If enough of the stake here is not happy with the outcome of this economy then the system parameters have to be changed. To repeat what I said in another comment, counting on morale or community-oriented behaviour is an expectation that will always be disappointed when there is money to be earned.
As for the root cause, to me it's the introduction of delegations and linear rewards that marginalized community approval as a factor for reward allocation. And both, the bid bot economy and voting circles have been fueled by these changes. Yes, voting circles have existed before, yet were a phenomenon that required whale participation. Now we have these circles throughout the entire stake-holder hierarchy.
So if changes are introduced that counter voting circles you will probably erode the economic viability of bid bots, too.
What I meant about low morale, is many people are discouraged and jaded right now in general with how things are and where they are going.
The SBD pump has also dramatically changed the game and how people interact with the platform.
You're spot on, @shaka. And that's why it's also not suprising that the author doesn't answer your question :-) Wie sagt man so schön: wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen...
Hi Marly,
just to clarify my stance, I don´t criticize anyone for providing a service that is a logical consequence of the economic changes that were introduced with HF19 (delegations and linear rewards). As sad as it may be, bid bots won't go away as long as no systematic changes are (re)introduced. Counting on unselfish or community oriented behaviour is an understandable expectation, yet an expectation that inevitably results in disappointment whenever money is involved. So what we observe is a matter of how the incentives are currently set.
Still, it remains elusive to me which message @themarkymark aims to convey with this post. To me it seems as if an ad broker would complain that there are to many ads around. It´s his business and he is free to run it. However, complaining about the logical outcome of this business is weird (assuming now, that the message of this post is some sort of a complaint).
Cheers!
Totally got it and support your point of view!
I believe bid bots are completely against the decentralized belief. I'd like to quote a tweed from Dan Larimer to underline that:
It's definitely a design problem in first instance. Apparently we accept that there is no economical circle anymore - like the one that was designed when Steem was launched. Now money just flows into one direction - from the bottom to the top. Bid bots are not designed to support minnows, they're designed to take away their money.
I'm pretty curious if SMTs will be able to fix these fundamental issues.
My response above.
Actually, I just did respond when I had a chance to catch up, but thanks stopping by.
PS: Don't forget that this is a troll-free zone
Probably we should say thanks to these guys for our Trending.
In this case they made 95% of payout
They make our Trending Page, they decide for all the Steemians, which of the contributions bring the most value to the community. Unfortunately, real human votes are no longer needed to determine the value of content.
Actually, my current stance on bid bots is neutral. But I find it odd when someone who fuels the pay for exposure economy bemoans it's inevitable consequences.
BTW, this analysis here may interest you. According to this estimation, roughly one sixth of the daily reward pool is currently allocated by bid bots.
I would understand if this meme was placed by some of the newcomers as a sign of utter despondency and disappointment.
But on the part of the bid-bot owner and Steemit delegate, who has a reputation and a rather large SteemPower, it looks at best as a recognition of his own helplessness / unwillingness to do something, and at worst - as a mockery of all Steemians. IMO
I would exclude the worst case assumption, but otherwise, I remain puzzled over the intent of this post.
Absolutely. I'd say the message is self evident, like the author trying to pull a Marcel Duchamp. And I'd call it art too if it weren't for the blatant mocking of Steemit users. I'm try to learn from those things a lesson about whales toxicity