This post is like a second part, a continuation of my post about POB token distribution, which was published almost three weeks ago. Like an endorsement that nothing comes close in the importance of token distribution, especially in the early days of the tribe.
I was constantly monitoring, how the top POB token holders do their prime duties - the daily curation. For POB this is at extreme importance, as the post /curation rewards are the only method of issuing and distributing new tokens. All token inflation goes 100% that one single route. There are no miners, no bounties nor anything else, which could help the tasks of distribution.
It was not hard to notice, that one whale is outstanding of the whole picture. Which behaves as no anyone else. At least in the TOP20 on the richlist.
I'm talking about @richardcrill.
As of today he holds 45524 active staked POB tokens, which is around 5.84% of all staked POB. He sits firmly in the #3 spot on the POB richlist.
I had not enough time yet to dig out, by which particular methods he has accumulated his POB stake, but this is not the subject of this post.
My interest was to see how, when and who Richard is upvoting on the POB tribe.
At the beginning, I had hopes that I can meet him and talk directly about things I'm concerned. But it looks like there is no any way to do this.
He has made maybe 5 comments and only one single post since last Christmas (in early March). He was not seen on Discord. It seems he has no interest in communicating at all.
I can not imagine how busy one must be to make ONE post in 6 months. Maybe he is. But then - hardly he is even reading here anything.
What caught my eye, was the very low number of upvoted authors. And most of the time - the same accounts again and again.
And there is no doubt that major part of his upvotes goes out in AUTO mode, on a hard coded voting bot. Not following any trail, any other curator, but simply upvoting his favorites on the 15th or 18th second of the post life. This is how his votes distributed in the last seven days:
78.5% tokens distributed in a fully "blind" mode, with a hard-coded bot, on the first seconds of the post.
The first three of his favorites share over 31% of the rewards. All in a BLIND mode, without even seeing/reading the upvoted posts !
Is this a healthy token distribution?
BTW,
the #1 favorite (above) is the only author of his targets, who always gets nothing but 100% power upvotes.
#3 favorite not long ago was posting only a short 3-5 line long posts, which seemed like a ONE MINUTE effort. (They have increased their post size after several of my downvotes.)
OK, I said, maybe this is just one week. Maybe very busy week. I downloaded ALL his upvotes for the last 40 days. All 824 upvotes, given to 212 authors.
Here are the results:
Do you see many differences in the top lines?
I have no idea if we can do anything about this.
What we really can, if he is NOT communicating with anyone? (or maybe he does, at least to his favorites?)
In any case, we seem to be simply as hostages of this whale.
After all, he can do what he wants with his stake. Who knows, maybe after this my post, he will raise the part of his reward to TOP-3 favorites from 31% to 95%.
Or more?
He never does selfvotes. (as he never posts anything!)
He can not be downvoted. (as he never posts anything!)
What underground ties are between @richardcrill and his top favorites ???
I don't know this. We don't know. We can only guess.
All we can do is live with that. With hope that maybe one day things will change.
Unfortunately, with recent activity pattern of tribe's founder in mind - I do not have a big hopes for that.
@onealfa Thank you for making this post, actually I want to discuss this on discord. It's just because he is also on the richlist, so I'm not too brave to criticize him in POB. As we can see from the @littledisciples account, you can check the account yourself, that he always gets upvotes from @richardcrill, whatever he writes in his posts.
I want to criticize @richardcrill not because I don't get upvotes from him and I don't need upvotes with that way. It's just that curating without reading or curating for the same person is always not healthy, too many communities in POB are making quality posts that need support from richlist.
In fact, what turns me mad at most, is the fact, that such a large part of his distributed tokens are spread out in a 100% BLIND mode, on the 15th second. Without even knowing what exactly been upvoted
We are only lucky that @littledisciples (or someone else from his favorites) still have not started posting a ONE word posts TEN times a day.
It could be done.
10 posts = 10 auto upvotes on the 15th second of the post.
Totally possible.
Well, if he has a 1 upvote per day limit set, then that isn't possible. It could be done, but there are no signs of it yet (going off my own autovote and seeing @vempromundo's comment here stating similar).
Just seems like lots of assumptions and nothing substantial to back it up. Speculation is toxic when you have framed it like you have in this post/comments.
Did you do this on purpose to see what kind of doubt you could stir up? I don't know. I question your self-awareness more and more each passing day.
Uhm, I think I will need to bribe to @richardcrill to include me in his autovote list. Then, I can easily cheerfully start to write not ten, but twenty ONE word posts to be upvoted on the 15th second from now on and sleep like a baby until the next daily twenty posts session. Hahahaha
Sure you will have this chance to do, if enough (50+%) ppl vote now to prohibit downvotes on overvalued rewards. If this happens, I will go to my next door neighbour, active photographer, who is still posting his photos on steem/appics, will tell him to come back to hive & POB, and will put him on my autovoter.
We will play by rules, no plagiarism, no NSFW, nothing unauthorized.I wonder under which excuse "antidownvoters" will stop us.
It's nice to see that your integrity would remain intact if there were changes made.
Reason of DV? Disagreement on rewards !
Whatever helps you sleep at night. We can go round and round in circles when it comes to disagreement on rewards, I don't plan on getting any point across because you're a self-declared maximalist who can't see past his own nose.
Feel free to drop me a tag if you ever make it out of the limited mindset that you currently occupy.
This is an example of one of those "high value" posts Mr. Richard keeps supporting on the 15th (!) second of the post. How long it takes for you to type 58 words?
It's a good point. I think there are worse example though. It would honestly be easier if we set some kind of standard. What do you, or anyone else, think of that idea?
Seems like an endless task to try to combat it on your own.
For instance, you mentioned you DV'd some of Crill's rewards for "over-rewarding". You provided an example. @trostparadox, would this be a candidate for DV'ing by consensus? It's definitely slippery.
Yes, we could approach this sort of thing a number of ways.
As I mentioned on Discord, the best approach is to contact the upvoter directly. Has anyone contacted @richardcrill to alert him to the fact that @littledisciples may be taking advantage of his auto-vote?
I have not looked closely at @littledisciples posting habits, but there is a natural tendency for an account-holder who gets put on a 'fan-list' by a whale, to start posting more and more frequently, often with less and less quality. Most 'whales' don't want their auto-votes taken advantage of like that and will remove the auto-vote for that account or greatly diminish future upvote percentages.
A community consensus protocol could also be created. There are a myriad of ways to go about that. For example, maybe we have a group of 5 POBLeus curators each grade the flagged post based on their assessment of 'level of effort' (and take the median value), then apply a 'community-derived' sliding scale (equating ascribed level of effort to maximum allowable reward). If the post is deemed to have been over-rewarded, then [1] disable additional upvoting via the front-end [2] send a message to the top voter and ask him/her to reduce their vote value for that post, [3] auto-downvote from the proofofbrainio account just before payout (if needed), to reduce the total reward down to the 'community-derived' amount.
That way, if the highest upvoter adjusts his/her vote before payout, the DV gets skipped and no other curators suffer the penalty of the DV.
Also, if it turns out that a specific upvoter is consistently over-rewarding posts and refuses to adjust his/her voting habits, then other curators can consciously avoid upvoting posts that are also upvoted by that 'rogue' curator. (A weekly report of DVs for over-rewarded posts would help with this). Leading to that rogue curator getting only his/her upvotes downvoted.
This is just one very-quickly-put-together example.
Again, there are a myriad of ways to address this, some more elegant than others, no doubt.
I would hope that, in the future, you don't hesitate to bring your concerns. In no way should anyone here be hesitant to be critical. It is one huge reason I invest in POB.
I don't know why he votes for me, it seems to me that the vote is one every 24 hours I receive, because when I create posts with an interval of 23 hours between one and another, his vote doesn't arrive
I didn't know about this data, and I'm glad you brought it, I believe that after these 2 or 3 days I took to relax, I'll go back to writing something, the last few days stressed and tired me out, but now I'm returning to normal
I don't know what solution to bring to this situation, but it doesn't surprise me the top 3 after everything I've seen in pob
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Not sure what’s worse…that you’ve spent all this time digging through and worrying about someone else’s votes or that I actually read through it all. 😂
I'm debating that myself. It's like you read my mind. I like the post though. It paints a picture about how we can view the data for ourselves at the very least.
I don't have any underground ties to him. You are correct that I do receive his vote quickly. I thus can't truly be unbiased in anything I have to say about this.
I actually noticed your post because I was looking for places to place my own votes manually (I have no bots). Perhaps he knows me by my past and knows when I have a chance I do this.
I do take my voting seriously but since I am not a bot I cannot always do it. Perhaps this is why he has automated some but not all of his voting. I cannot say. I am just guessing.
Since I only returned to posting here about 2 months ago after stopping about 2 years ago I can assure you I have no ties to him other than he is offering me his endorsement for my posts.
The real question is if you look at my posts that I upvotes are they unworthy? If so that may be an issue.
This is something worth looking into. Of the people he up votes automatically are they doing cookie cutter posts or are they consistently putting some thought into what they posts? If they are then that would change things.
There is something we can do....
Downvote whoever he upvotes with the same weight to counter his curation rewards.
It's what OCD does when you get a Rancher vote on Hive.
It's not ideal, but it's something.
Along with a comment explaining why I don't think it's too much of a problem.
There is some talk of him being the proofofbrain account holder too, but that could just be Spec.
Nothing like a bit of drama to keep us on our toes!
Then those they upvote will reply in doing same to whoever downvotes them. Even though you are factually and maybe morally right just think of the back and fourth it will likely cause. I would stick to downvoting the bad actor directly only. Many who don’t even know what’s going on will just do same to us. I don’t think it will work regardless even we are right to do so.
Yes i was just thinking out loud TBH!
When you do that, you only hurt the little voters?
He still has x% of the somewhat smaller curation pool.
It could make his share go up as a percentage of the whole?
I'd suggest burning him to the ground and compensating the collateral damage, but what do I know?
Yes it would hurt everyone and I guess turn his vote into something of a curse.
You've got me thinking about bot solutions to this now, or 'solutions' maybe a better way of putting it.
DVing and then posting other content and sharing the rewards of those in transfers to everyone else affected by the DV.
I'm sure it's codeable.
Yes, most everything can be solved by 'good' rules adhered to by 'good' people, iyam.
Where we find said people probably requires a crowd and much conversation to find 'the truth'.
Some will change to fit the rules, others will change the rules to fit them.
In the hive, I would say more need to change to fit the rules, rather than the other way around.
Greedy people are gonna greed.
It still makes more sense to me to burn him, and others that don't contribute 'good' content to the chain, to the ground.
This is a crab bucket, after all.
We have an abundance around us, we just need the greediest to leave a little for everybody else.
I'd make it a box to check on the 'is this a good person' checklist.
That’s a brutal idea. So much collateral damage. It’s why most people quit Hive… vindictive downvoting.
There's no ideal solution, I just remember Steem when there were no DVs
It was shit.
I think @themarkymark put it most succinctly in a comment somewhere - for every malicious DV there are 100 irresponsible upvotes.
On a complete tangent i think it's a moot point - I'm not about to invest that heavily in a side chain where I don't know who the token issuer is, or worse, where i don't know but i've got an idea and I think he might be a bit of a loose cannon.
Maybe for that reason we shouldn't have DVs - from an investor's perspective POB can only ever be a bit of fun anyway! Dvs can ruin that for sure.
100? More like 1000-10000 :)
Yes, I overuse my 0 key so I have to be conservative with it.
Some of the extremes that you pointed out were pretty clear to see like with your article on Lassecash.
Is there a word count/rewards ratio where you deem something is over-rewarded? Could it be that objective? Is there some consensus behind the scenes before a DV on over-rewarding gets issued?
For instance, self-voting is tolerated, but if I gave this comment a full upvote on my POB account, I "feel" that would be malicious. Would I be correct in writing that observation?
Are there types of malicious upvoting? Just looking for guidance here.
It is very subjective.
In my opinion? Yes. I am personally not a fan of self voting comments. In some rare cases I may do so with a small vote to bring it to the top of the comments if it is something critical. But in almost all cases self voting comments is just farming.
All the conspiracy posts that take half of trending that get massive votes for pseudo science. All the whales that voted 5-20 vote posts that had no rewards to maximize their curation with little effort (pre-hardfork 25). There are a few whales dropping $15-40 votes without regard to quality or even content and they stack on top of each other to take posts near $100 when they normally only take a few cents. Just look at trending, you will see the same 5-6 whales controlling it with no regard to quality.
I could go on, but I will struggle to find many cases of this elusive "malicious downvoting" that we are trying to stop by making laws on how to vote with their stake.
Christ almighty. I keep going back to what you said in discord some time ago about the number of fraud attempts that occur on Hive. This type of upvoting is just as bad.
I appreciate your response, though. Have you written any posts related to this type of upvoting? Or, do you know anyone who has?
I think I have an idea about what people talk about regarding "malicious downvoting", but I don't have a full picture yet so I can't speak to it at this time.
Yeah… I see way too much collateral damage when whales start downvoting whales.. and minnows get wiped out. Lots of people quitting over losing a few pennies on the 7th day. 1 or 2 hive is nothing to a whale but it’s a meal for some people in the world.
Agreed 💯
But Nobody cares.
Sadly...
Oh, what's a rancher vote? I've talked with @trostparadox about that in the past.
Explaining the reasoning for the downvote, as you mentioned, would eliminate a lot of problems too. No one knows who the POB account holder truly is. I think...
If someone is acting counter to the interests of the group, and won't discuss the situation, you have to figure out what you are gonna do.
As this situation is in a community still finding it's rhythm there are no precedence to go by.
I'm of the opinion that one would force a pow wow to find consensus with the object of the friction, and absent that, one would act unilaterally to support the interests of the group.
One might want to reach out for other options from within the tribe, but ultimately the good of the tribe is what has to be determined by the tribe.
Maybe most folks don't think this is an issue.
They would have to be asked.
I don’t rely think more accounts should get hurt by all the back and fourth. It should be POB big wigs make some policy on this. If they don’t then dump and show them u guys are serious. I just think the downvoting thing will make things worse as random accounts who don’t know background will be hurt and do it back
He is referring to haejin aka ranchorelaxo.
ranchorelaxo has 1.5 million HP.
Whenever ranchorelaxo upvotes someone's content, the 'powers-that-be' like to swoop in and downvote the post, to nullify the rancho upvote.
As @antisocialist pointed out above:
That's the point I was making on Discord. Nuking the post because you don't like the whale upvoter punishes all the legitimate manual curators who genuinely thought the content deserved an upvote -- a very short-sighted and small-minded approach, imho.
I would burn anything he voted on to zero, then I would compensate some percentage to the innocent, but that would require some greedy f**ks to let some pennies fall from their grasp.
This option has been rejected multiple times in the past when suggested.
It makes me wonder which side those folks are on.
Clearly they don't care about the little people that get hurt, because they know the math inside and out, and refuse to do anything but harm them even more.
Smdh.
Unfortunately it will just start more back and fourth downvoting. Ur morally in right I’d def say with this idea. But it won’t end there. Seen it enough on Steemit years back and here on Hive. Just seen it or similar b4. I hope I’m wrong if that’s the plan
Either we let these accounts bleed us slowly, or we bite whatever bullets it takes to rid ourselves of them, imo.
Until enough stake comes together to do this, they are just the cost of maintaining this business, I guess.
Rancherelaxo, aka Haejin, who i'm sure you've heard of?!? I'm an occasional victim of his upvotes.
Communication to the owner is almost certainly the best direction, I guess what we really want is them delegating to some kind of ethical curation account.
It's probably possible to narrow the account owner down to a tiny handful of people you know, with a bit of digging!
Doesn't it cost a small fortune in BEE or something to set up a proper token? Someone had to shift funds around to buy that shortly before, not many people doing that in the time window this all came live.
It'd be worth knowing. I don't generally invest very much in projects run by ONE ANONYMOUS individual, that's EXTREME HIGH RISK.
Haejin I've heard of but I didn't know the alias.
I heard is was a couple of thousands of BEE to set it up. I'm not sure what the actual number is at this time.
I can't fault your concerns. They're definitely valid. The only token I'm 100% comfortable holding is my STEM tokens. The owner always responds to questions. I haven't really seen him push anyone away to the point of ignoring. That's kind of amazing.
I thought it was around a thousand so in that area for sure.
Leo is pretty trustworthy too!
Of course. While I was on Leo, I felt good there. I just don't think I can comment too much about Leo. It's just not my thing. I tried writing about finances and the like, but it didn't synch with me.
This will likely be hidden... I thought I'd share it in case you didn't see the mention:
https://peakd.com/hive-150329/@dwinblood/there-is-a-quick-way-to-lose-my-sympathy-and-agreement-censor-me
I did receive an auto-vote from @richardcrill on the first thing I wrote today. I didn't on subsequent things I wrote. It may be set to do it for one of my posts per day. I don't know. Yes, it is clearly automated.
Oh no, your kryptonite...
This account is upvoting some of heavily downvoted users on Hive. That’s good
He also bought a lot of his stake and helped stabilise the POB market in the early stages, long before onealfa arrived. I've been a recipient of @richardcrill's autovote for a couple of months now. It started at 50%, then 75%, now 100%.
He also followed my curation trail firstly at 50%, then at 75% (although I paused my curation trail after the "part 1" of this intellectual series by alfdog after watching how blindly people will follow twisted narratives).
Personally, I always try to put out decent content to warrant the autovote. Although recently I've been increasing the beneficiary percentages to @pob-fund on my posts that aren't much to shout about. Most of the people who receive the autovotes are great authors and solid members of the POB community, it's great to see @richardcrill supporting their efforts.
It's also nice to see the support to @littledisciples, a Venezuelan foundation that richardcrill has supported for years (comment). I found this out after seeing onealfas comments and downvotes on the posts, which were then stopped as changes were made to the content.
https://www.proofofbrain.io/proofofbrain/@littledisciples/qvcca8
A nice bit of clarification and insight @calumam. I do appreciate and understand both sides of this discussion so to speak. I think something along the lines of my suggestions in my response above to @onealfa may be finessed into something that satisfies all parties' interests :-) I'm all for resolving issues as far as possible to create win-win situations for involved stakeholders. But then I'm still new here and don't fully appreciate the history of the platform yet and the input that you have all given to support it's growth and development to this point, including your good selves supporting new and diverse authors as they join the platform, so literally just my 2 cents worth lol. It must not be forgotten that the authorial rewards that you have earned on these auto upvotes (which you would probably have got if he had manually voted anyway, and which are probably mostly deserved), are being used by you to drive support of other authors on the platform through your own staked POB and curation efforts. Big picture view is definitely required :-)
It would be great to hear @onealfa's opinion on your comment. He has 5 years experience on Hive and Steemit so I'm sure he knows a thing or two about content.
Glad you were able to see the two sides of the story, it helps with understanding how the platform really is. Too many people get sucked up in the narratives and don't do proper research (which is fair enough and understandable if some don't have the time, but it isn't a good look).
I agree. It's the age old...look before you leap...think before you speak thing again. There are some sound points made on both sides of the arguement (or discussion as I'd prefer to call it lol). As "voters" we are obligated to inform ourselves before we cast. The same applies to politics...and life :-)
can't speak for most of the people on that list but amr008 is a super awesome guy and from my point of view deserves all the votes he can get.
Absolutely. I agree with your every word on amr008
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Very true! And he also runs a great project to drive engagement on POB and other communities so he really earned every little bit of it!
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I can only guess what's up with @richardcrill. It seems to me that his voting bot rules are set to upvote bigger accounts for the purpose of receiving more passive income from curation. As "Altcoin Jesus" perhaps he already made his ascension.
It would be nice to get a hold of him but I don't know him. In the meantime I don't see much we can do but for those who are voted by this account to redistribute the reward in the community.
This is indeed a cause of concern for someone with such a heavy stake. I have even seen like a 300-400 words post from littledisciples account fetching over 80+ POB. But I didn’t feel I should be the judge of how relevant a writeup is for someone or how someone should use their upvote.
I can see that he has contributed for the initial growth and upbringing of the community. But this shouts irresponsibility which fends of community and potential investors. As this not something very hard to spot.
This isn’t difficult to reprimand either. He can easily follow any low staked manual curator. And switch at times. We even have POBleus team now to choose from. But i think as far as we should strech to neglect this is - an investor should at least be approachable to his peers if he can’t be responsible for any reasons.
If you ever become concerned about how something looks you can always follow onealpha's example. I feel he acts to protect his investment. However, we also don't have his stake in the game either. You do have a couple of options, though:
We have processes in place for this now, but no one person can evaluate every article. Even if we get all our earnings from doing so. Together, however, we can make in impact.
Oh, thanks for bringing this in my consideration. I will remember to share the link in discord if anything will seem offbeat to me.
Until now, I didn’t know over-rewarding is being moderated here. As this is something prevalent everywhere at the platform.
Well, that's the thing. Certain behaviors just aren't well-defined here and @trostparadox's recent proposal published for voting starts to address. Please don't forget to vote!
If we want to encourage engagement, which I know we all want to do, then perhaps we should look at proposals such as requiring an active account with active curation, publication etc as a minimum, which then enables a POB member to utilise such things as auto upvote functionality. So, if a member of the community is not active for a certain period, any set auto upvote activity lapses until they satisfy the requirements of being active again eg: x number of articles/comments per month, x number of manual curations. Surely even the recipients of this auto upvote "goodwill", will agree that authentic community engagement is fundamental to the success of the platform and those holding influence in the community should lead by example. Is there also perhaps not a way in which the number of members that can be added to an auto upvote scheme by a single account holder, is limited in number and timeframe? eg: You can have at any one time 10 authors on auto upvote from yourself for a fixed period of up to 3 months (much like delegation). Thereafter, you have to renew the upvote list (and make a minimum of X changes to the people on your list), and renew the time periods. It is neither right nor wrong what is being done, as those being auto upvoted may well deserve the votes, and would probably have got them anyway from the curator if they had the time to curate manually. I do, however, think that it does make a bit of a mockery of the platform if posts can be curated automatically regardless of the quality. Even the best authors do not always produce their best work and there should be a requirement to act responsibly and authentically as a curator.
I think he set his bot in the early days to people who were posting good/decent content. Seems like a "set it and forget it" perhaps? I don't know the whale in question and I am not sure if anyone receiving these votes does. I think he just turned his money printing machine to autopilot. If downvote's come my way to counter, so be it (reputation be damned). I have enjoyed the votes and I feel I make good post, but it is what it is... People are going to do what they will with their stake and I am alright with that , it takes all kinds.
He is a good guy but he is making few votes on the POB community. If he Wants can make people smile a lot. My Request to @richardcrill to upvote all kinds of POB-related posts.
Nailed it with this comment. I think one thing we can take from this is a better understand of the impacts of token distribution, and use that to make better investment decisions down the road.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I don't see my name on that list, but I am glad to have found POB when I did and started posting. Probably could have done more in the beginning but I only wanted a modest stake I am not trying to prove anything here.
i dont really see any problem here.
It was Richard who got me into pob by giving me some nice upvotes, otherwise i probably woudnt have bothered . he is the founder of the weedcash network here on hive. Or 1 of the founders at least...he doesnt post much that is true but neither does @proofofbrain. It seems like he only auto votes on posts he actually likes anyway.
It seems to me he is helping the community in general.
You should be able to do what you like as long as you not breaking any of the obvious rules.
peace, G.
That is very interesting. Not the way I thought this post was going to go. I thought you were going to say he was the only one voting well. Now I see that is not the case. I guess it is good that so many other whales on PoB are spreading their votes around nicely.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
For future DV, it would help us out a great deal if you could post link with low content/high rewards in our spam-abuse section for additional evaluation. @trostparadox has a proposal out to develop a way to evaluate rewards/content, but we need data to make something reliable.
Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
Well… I am very happy to get at least 4 votes. That’s great.
Is he alive?
Death, inheritance and bot issues can be a problem for blockchain.
Even more so during a pandemic this can be something very "common" and unfortunately.
A few days ago I found a guy with a account on steemit worth more than 300k net dollars, that's not counting the SP
And for a long time inactive or any movement.
watch it on a longer scale. Then the picture maybe becomes more clear.
In general that's what POB does :)
Mute him and see if he squawks?
He may have passed into the next dimension.
All I can say is I feel miffed because my name doesn't show at all.
But then again my name doesn't show up ion a lot of things, which is also a good thing... maybe
Oh nevermind, my name does show LOL
nevermind falls alarm
!PIZZA
!BEER
@onealfa! I sent you a slice of $PIZZA on behalf of @eii.
Learn more about $PIZZA Token at hive.pizza (10/10)
View or trade
BEER.Hey @onealfa, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @eii for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.of course it is unhealthy to vote blind posts with bots, as it encourages the community to create garbage and be rewarded.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I did just post something that he has not auto upvoted. I'd say he is likely listening to you.
Just so you know mate, this person (among a few others) is why I have very little faith in the longevity of POB. Back in early 2018 he wanted me to join something he called "the dolphin pod", where 10 selected dolphins would delegate to a single account for a 100% upvote each day.
My response when asked if interested in joining:
In three years, not much seems to have changed in the mentality.
For what I see, the ones voted are the top 20 accounts powering up POB in the first month of POB activity. That is the link, i think.
Not sure...I know I follow a few curation trails to take care of most of my curation, leaving a few that I want to vote for myself after the curation trails are done. Does he ever sell or buy POB? He's also a whale on LVL...a coin I'm currently trying to hit 1M on. It could be he just invests in coins and then lets bots do the rest...
Read my article that I think you will like..... or not?
I don't even bother to search and waste my time. Only dumb people leave such evidence.
Smart knows how to hide even smallest traces, because blockchain keeps all "burned in stone"
That is a very good question. I'm not sure how to find out.