You know I love you but I honestly feel you don't see the bigger impact of vote selling. The part about "we need much more people giving regular small votes" is EXACTLY what vote selling is crippling. An ever increasing amount of the total vote power on platform is delegated to vote selling. It is going to hit 50% soon. Before the rise of vote selling, a huge chunk of available SP was just not voting, which meant that every small vote cast by a real human had a MUCH larger influence on the reward pool. The more of the total SP that goes to vote sellers, the less of an influence the small votes of real people have. That is a fact. There is no way around it. Big whales before, if they wanted to earn money from their SP, could either vote on other people's posting (earning curation rewards) or vote on their own posting (and run the risk of getting in flag wars with other big whales who disagree with self voting crap posting, see e.g. Haejin / Bernie). Now, big whales just delegate their SP to vote sellers and all that SP is used every day and the effect on small votes is HUGE. If you are advocating for an increase in people giving out smaller votes / more sustainability - you should be advocating against vote selling. The math is clear.
adding value to the Steem blockchain. And, as much as it pains me to admit it, he does add more value to Steem than the vast majority of the other top witnesses, fully half of whom are directly involved in vote selling! But I honestly believe every big Curie upvote is ALSO an advertisement for Steem, outside of the blockchain, and a much more effective form of advertising at that. Did you tell friends when you got your first big Curie vote? I am willing to bet you did. I am willing to bet everyone who received a big curie, told people about it. This is advertising for Steem, and the most effective form as well - advertising coming from trusted sources.But my broader point wasn't to pit Curie against Bid Bots. It was addressing a specific and very common criticism, that Curie doesn't really add value to the platform by giving out big votes. To me, there is a very clear and pressing need for MORE large votes given out based on the merits of content and not on someone paying for it. People often point to @jerrybanfield paying for ads for Steem and say, at least he is
To be very clear im making a list.
I don't not like buying votes. I do not agree that its good for the platform. I said there is no other sustainable option that whales are willing to adhere to.
Since October 2017 I have been a vote purist. I have resisted self voting, advocated for more unbiased curating similar to curie, argued/discussed/yelled about finding solutions with dolphins and witnesses galore. Guess what the bigest hinderAnce is? Freedom. Yep. Bidbots and flagging and whale spam are allowed because "freedom" and "liberty" .thats your real villain.
As a reviewer and person who has made a full time career out of curie, love you! But you are biased. If Curie succeeds-- you succeed. You are tooooo far in the Curie rabbit hole to tell me that I dont see the bigger picture! My goal is to help women around the world gain a sustainable income while combatting inequality. If steemit is a success--- i can do that. However Curie isnt going to get us there. Its great!! For new people!! A great way to keep "new authors" who arent political or religious excited about steemit.
It is not, however, a great advertising tool. I did tell people about my curie votes! And i felt do good and respectedand honored. But not one person came over from that. Why? Because I haven't made it sustainable able. Its just another flash in the pan. When I can live off steem earnings and still support my community-/ then i will truly be a steemambassador.
Bidbots are helping me get there with gaurunteed money. I do my part by not posting crap.
🤷♀️
Ps ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈🌈