Well, on one hand, Bots do Stake huge amounts of Steem. On the other hand, newer users do have to buy liquid Steem to upvote/promote their posts. What are the real negative impacts of the Bots to the market?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What happens to that liquid Steem after it is used to promote? It is probably sold. So the effect on the market is probably around neutral.
That would be the case if the bot is working with a negative yield, who would use that? You're clearly off the rails with that argument.
I did not understand that sentence.
The way I see it, customer buys a vote from the bot, bot gets the fee as a liquid payment, passes it on to the delegators who will often, though not always, sell it as a source of passive income. (It is certainly possible in an individual case that they aren't selling and are accumulating Steem, but if that were happening on a broad scale, we'd see a very different Steem price.)
Bot services act as a sink for STEEM. They are technically good for the short-term value of STEEM. The negative impact is related to the quality of content on Steem. Ideally, Steem should be a place to accumulate high quality content which would result in the value of STEEM going up over time. Kind of like Youtube, the better the content the more people will come and be attracted.
Bot services do not concern themselves with the quality of the content, just collecting fees. So the quality could be poor, which does not draw in viewers.
This is my opinion as classical Marketing/Information Tech Person:
No you're wrong... Users have different values of which they feast in content.
Your view is:
"I read/watch it and it gives me good perspective and information."
That is right for you and for your use of Steem, but not a general approach.
You have to admit, life is not a news magazine!
A lot of people search for something, something they just miss in their daily lives. That includes beauty, passion, inspiration, crazy Stuff, awsome Stunts... you see where this is going.
Your approach is as discriminating as it is common for the Steem community at the moment. So you can now pet yourself on the shoulder because you understood the spirit of the moment, your Mainstream - that is good for you. But in order to grow to an wide audience, Steem content has fulfilled all the needs of different people, not only the higher once. With the Tribes and the SMTs we're on the way there, but with your very brief vision of what is good or bad, well... another year like this and STEEM is worth 0.01$ - and then it dies. You want that?
This something that you can learn for your life out of this short conversation:
Your turn now, who said that?
I do not disagree with your point. I think that HF21 made Steem a little more like Youtube though, unprofitable for most content producers, very profitable for the extremely popular ones. There are drawbacks and benefits from that system.
wich feature on steem remindes you of youtube? And how did it get empowered by HF20/21?
Often in life, we know what we like or hate even before we tried it. I bet you experience that very often.
It was the penalty/bonus threshold. Steemit said that it would be around 20 STEEM, but it turns out that the bonus/penalty begins somewhere around $10 in post rewards, which is quite a bit more than 20 STEEM.
This would be a great idea, in my opinion, but only if community voting was equal between all people. I believe this threshold concept doesn't work because of the disparity of vote values.
it is at 10$ you say? mhm, I see