I don't think @randowhale needs defending at this point. There are 99 happy users for every 1 who has a complaint. If you want to bump your post, pay for a vote, chances are if you use it correctly you'll receive more reward than you put in. There's really nothing else to it, it's exactly what it seems.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
My post was pretty clear. I like the option of @randowhale because it is a strategic decision. Your detractors like @bluerthangreen are saying that poor content is getting upvoted, which is detrimental to Steem.
I would ask for proof that this is happening.
Because when I strategically use @randowhale, I have already had a number of upvotes through some other means, and the post is already of some value.
A single upvote from @randowhale is not going to pump up a post too much or give it enough gravity to make worthless posts valuable.
I may be preaching to the choir here, but the proper use of @randowhale is to add him to a chorus of voices that are already singing the same tune. He drowns out most voices, but he is not a solo artist.
My friend @bluerthangreen is of the opposite side. I am pretty sure you can tell I was joking about "planning the destruction of Steem Platform," which was clearly the innuendo when he wrote about "the undoing of the whole Steemit system" at the head of this thread.
I don't see @randowhale as a curation bot, but rather a payout pumping bot. I don't know if that distinction is worth more comment, but that's a counter-point to @randowhale allegedly ruining post curation.
Curation isn't "thwarted" by a payout bot.