No what? No to everything I said? You're comparing self sacrificing of a patronage to Voting on Steem where you don't sacrifice anything. I don't know how you can evade the fact that automation has no place in social interactions and Goethe function of Curation isn't invalidated when you automate it, or that you've tried again and again to compare apples to oranges and in doing so you've literally made the impression that you neither understand CHARITY, self sacrifice or CURATION.
When the whale experiment was happening I was the first to commend smooth and Anita efforts as self sacrifice and it takes not one iota of wisdom to recognize it as such, yes there's even a comparable example yet you won't be able to defend your "big picture" by expounding how and why a free resource that gives you more of it as you use it in the way you argue can be comparable to a limited resource that diminishes and doesn't automatically replenish. You have no qualms about brushing aside the fact that by not voting you give others a chance to share more of the rewards, it's petty and selfish.
What are you talking about no self-sacrifice? I am yet to use a steem of what I have earned here regardless of my real world position and have distributed a hell of a lot more than many other other people who have earned more in much easier ways then myself. It is fine for those without SP to be on a high horse but when it comes to distribution, it is the people with SP who are doing it.
voting isn't a social act, it is a transaction.
Ah, you mean leave the pool completely to the bidbots? Interesting method for helping content producers there.
yeah this is going nowhere however,
@smooth's and @abit' s whale experiment was run before bidbots entered into the marketplace. It was before HF19 and was used to cancel out whale votes over a certain threshold. I know this because they both flagged my largest ever post at the time (something like 20 dollars) which had received a vote from @thejohalfiles. I didn't know about the experiment until this point but once I worked out what was going on, I left a message of support for them.
When it comes to curation reward, since there are much higher value ways to earn, there is an opportunity cost in not using them but the cost to community is an even narrower distribution. As far as charity is concerned, at least in most countries there is a tax rebate available on the donation, I guess you could equate that to curation return too?
As far as I am concerned, I support people who support the community more heavily than those who don't and, if someone thinks similarly to me but is unwilling or unable to distribute their value themselves, I say automate it, trail a curator who finds value, use it in some way.
And btw, I don't automate my own vote, I have cast 38,000 manually and distributed something of financial value to many, many people over the last year and a half because, I have a long-term view of the platform and I act according to that view. You might have other ideas but, attempting to make ideas a reality takes more than words.
There is no such thing as a selfless act, there is always a return of some kind which means no matter the sacrifice, something is gained back.
you assume that all users bring the same value to the community? That is a pretty big call.
Nonsense. This depends on who is chosen as the manual curator. You seem to assume the worst in all people, perhaps it is reflective?
Again, this is BS. someone can offer a great deal to the community but it is offered to people who can't afford to maintain that person. They still need to eat but their content might be utterly useless to me personally. I want them to keep helping people so, once I have made the decision they bring value, I will support them even if I don't read their content.
profits for who? me? This is about distribution.
this makes no sense to me.
This isn't social media.
You seem to know me so well. It is amazing.