Who loses curation when a post they didn't vote on goes from a dollar to 20$ because of a few bot votes?
I don't understand what you mean here, care to elaborate?
We can't force bid bots to stop selling votes so we have to try discourage buyers from purchasing votes. Honestly you should know why purchasing votes is unfair to everyone not doing so @enginewitty, and not just that authors get a profit and beat the curve but delegators to bid bots earning a lot more ROI than honest curators. Surprised by your comment here.
I do understand and since I was using them myself, I also don't. Let's say a few whales have voted several posts up to 30 or 40, and there's a 100 at a dollar. All those people bot their posts and now they're all at 30 or 40 too, effectively forcing the payout of the others down as it is a shared rewards pool. Least that's how I understand or isn't that how it works?
I see both sides of the argument though. If a person warrants some big votes because their content is great or they know the right people, then that's wonderful. Hope they continue to get that attention. It's what the platform was initially designed for (I think). So for a shitty post with the some link to a video and no substance to be worth more because of some bots? Yes totally unfair. Also, the true rep score is highly skewed and misleading to their followers or other eyes.
However.
A person may have put a good deal of time into a post or think the information is important and feels it needs to seen more. They may even have a decent following but their little organic 50 votes and dollar payout will not get them on the hot list, let alone trending. So they need to advertise within their budget and the best way to do that here was with bidbots. It was competition for promoted posts from Steemit itself and competition is healthy for any ecosystem.
I also think that if a person is being downvoted, it should be manually done to guage their post content and not triggered just because a person bought a vote.
Hope that makes sense. Sounded right in my brain😁
It does make sense and all our downvotes are done manually too. Advertising is meant to cost though, if it doesn't it will instantly get abused like it was for the longest time when there were no downvotes. So yes, if someone writes great posts and uses bid bots they should not be downvoted as hard but they should still not receive a ROI from the bid bot votes on top of the attention, if they receive other votes despite the bots because the content is great then it is worth it but over 90% of bid bot votes we have seen and downvoted have not been used for "promotion/visibility/advertisement" meaning they are usually a day or two late and the content is crap. They are just buying votes for the profit. Bid bot owners won't sell unprofitable votes for "promotion" as they know almost no one is interested in buying votes for it so they lure them in with the profit while they make both the bid and the curation and outperform honest curators in ROI.
I wrote another post about this recently but it's not really something you can put down in 1-2 posts as there are so many connected parts to it which all compliment each other. Anyway, it's a bit disappointing reading what people have to say about the downvotes when we're sticking our necks out to do what is best for the platform and to get the same authors curation for free instead of having to buy them but I guess it's just something new that not many understand completely yet why it is happening and might do better over time.
There have always been flags, just not a separate pool for them. Which makes me wonder why that separate pool was created. Were there too few flags? I didn't see a single downvote from any larger stake holders being handed out hardly at all prior to, except during various wars like with Grumpy Cat and Belly Rub. I didn't see any bot police then, which again begs the question, why was a separate downvote pool created?
I think a better solution would have been to eliminate bot usage from the protocols altogether so all the big vote sellers are forced to handle their books and customers manually. Not really possible perhaps at this stage, so instead, maybe the bot owners could take responsibility and have a review board for the things people are bidding for before a vote goes out? Blacklists are great, but easily manipulated and steered around. I'm sure other solutions are there too, but little dolphins don't get heard very often by closed whale pods.
The main thing is, and you guys do justify your flags - most don't - is a downvote has a negative connotation and incites bad publicity. I know people want to come to STEEM, but they won't the way it is right now.
No.
The value comes from pushing dozens off of the long tail.
The less popular are denied any rewards at all for that ego trophy/profiteering.
Buying/selling votes breaks pob.
The day may come that we force any stake built through their use to burn it, or dump it.
We'd do it today, if it was up to me.