The authors who use bots will, by and large, benefit from this change at the expense of those who don't.
That assumes that bot users won't have their bot upvotes downvoted away by larger SP holders who are annoyed by their over-dependency on them (as there is now zero potential profit loss from downvoting at 100% a few times a day, aside from retaliation downvotes, which don't apply to accounts that don't create content and only curate).
This brings up another potential future issue - bot users being annoyed by dolphin/ orca/ whale downvotes on their content that they invested their own hard-earned money into (I forsee some "rage quits" happening in the future due to this). The risk with using bid bots will certainly be higher than it ever was before hard-fork 21, that much is a certainty.
I'm actually contemplating stopping all content creation on the Steem blockchain (as I'm making pittance on it as it is) and focusing solely on curation, so that I can use up all of my "free" downvotes without risk of retaliation from pissed off, entitled, Steemit abusers.
Same here. My career as author may end soon. My new career as whale flagger may begin. :)
I don't care much to earn more STEEM as I have enough anyway to get rich if the STEEM price rises significantly (and if it doesn't, then anyway it won't help to have even more STEEM than now).
The only problem is that I really like to write from time to time, and I guess my articles to become real flag festivals if I keep posting and at the same time flagging abusive whales. :)
I hear you.
One possible solution is to make an alternative account to post from, without leaving any obvious traces to your main account's identity (so you obviously can't vote on it or delegate SP to it from your main account). The problem with that is that we each have our own unique "writing personality" and potential voting retaliators may (or may not?) be astute enough to make the connection.
Odds are, sticking to the same posting format and/or topics (on top of what I mentioned about writing style) will add up to more than enough evidence to make that connection, assuming that the content from the alt-account is sufficiently "visible". If the posts from this alt-account are making mere pennies per pay-out, there's a chance that it can go on unnoticed for eons, haha.
I guess we'll see. I think big holders selling their downvotes and maybe downvoting the trending page seems more likely than them downvoting $6 upvotes from bidbots.
Posted using Partiko Android
I agree that that would likely be the majority of the focus (Haejin, don't know if I spelled that correctly, comes to mind as an account that could/ should receive some of that focus), but even a small percentage of the large-holders of SP devoting their power to quelling dependency on bid bots (if I can put it that way) could make a huge difference when it comes to how easy of a decision it is for users to rely on bid bots for exposure/ profits.
Even the "good" witnesses run bots themselves. They think, as long as it isn't flagrant abuse, it's not the problem.
They're against the 100x/day posts that buy votes.
But I think this change will encourage regular users with decent content to buy votes because the system is broken. It's just another step of complication.
I mostly agree. The "regular users with decent content" aren't a problem. Their content deserves to get discovered and their effort deserves monetary kick-back. It's the other seemingly 60% that put out near-literal crap left and right and bot-vote it up to ridiculous payouts that I see as the biggest issue on this platform; them and the greedy, 100% self-upvote whales...cough... Haejin... cough.
And that's exactly the problem. This net is being cast so wide, it will hit the good users as well as the abusers. It's like catching dolphins in tuna nets. Or it's like a court system that puts guilty people in jail, but also innocent people.
And ultimately, as much as the abusers are a problem, if the solution punishes the many non-abusers to this extent, it's not a solution.
You might be right. Who knows, this HF might be the last nail in the coffin on Steem's chances at self-sustainability as an economy, but I feel like action needs to take place now; some kind of change is needed, because what's happening now clearly isn't sustainable... for months, let alone years. There likely will be some "good actors" caught in the cross-fire if what I think is going to happen goes down anything like I visualize it, but, I also feel it will end up as a net positive, as (hopefully) a lot of the abusers will be put into their proper place (profitless or losing money) and essentially purged from the economy.
As much as I hate to use a borderline psychopathic saying, I'm going with it because I think it applies here: "you've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette".
I'll point out, there was no community feedback opportunity on the details. It was first presented that way, as a conversation starter, and then, whole hog, it was a done deal.
I have ideas about how the damage to "good actors" can be ameliorated, but the software is already written and the witnesses are hellbent on convincing us to drop our protestations and get on board. My only hope is that, if it doesn't do what they want and does hurt us more, they'll see that quickly and roll back the changes nearly immediately. But all these warnings that "as with any changes, there will be a period of pain as things adjust" make me fear that they're preparing us to grow used to a world that is duller. And that they'll be less able to see the moment when they can analyze its impact because they'll always be telling themselves it's just growing pains.
Positive changes don't always come with a period of financial pain for users, and efforts should be made to prevent those pains.
i’m down voting the trending page already