RE: BLIND UPVOTES and BLIND DOWNVOTES (Bidbots and Standards)
Nice. Concrete evidence that post promotion through bid bots add 0 demand for STEEM since it is not used unless fully subsidized by the reward pool and users reimburced! Free markets win :).
What puzzles me the most is how few of the "sad" bid bot runners are instead looking to do something else. Like build a curation project focused on a topic they would really love to see grow on Steem. The differences in returns with EIP compared to bidbots is not that big. Helping grow a whole new userbase would still allow you to pay back delegators and do something to grow the userbase in order to make future promotion actually attractive.
I'm not going to get stuck anymore discussing whether or not "responsible" use of bidbots is "good or bad". The bottom line is that there are so many better ways to use SP to drive Steem forward and make it more attractive. So let's build that instead.
If you're a huge fan of Photographs of one very specific thing, and you create a curation community around that particular thing, then the reward is in seeing lots of photographs of that one very specific thing.
The same way in which patrons pay artists for their work, or a commission.
Or, the way in which all those people buying merchandise for a particular brand, sporting team, or other thing, allow there to be a proliferation of that brand, sporting team, or other thing to do more things.
And you start off your comment with a baseless and unprovable theory.
The stakeholders actually provide the inflation as I am sure you are well aware.
We shouldn't call it the reward pool.
Maybe the stakeholder funded inflation pool would be a better term or it.
I no longer refer to it as a reward pool. It is an inflation pool.
I don't think his comment was baseless. The basis for it is seeing that vote buys are way down once some of the rewards are removed. That does indeed suggest that the actual demand (apart from wanting to get all or most of your purchase back from rewards) is pretty low (he did write "0 demand" which is hyperbole at best, and indeed baseless if not).
Again, though, I will say that it is too early to rush to conclusions. We'll need to see how the market plays out over coming months.
insignificant relative to the demand for "free" profit (that was the main driver previously) would have been more accurate.
Exactly what I was saying a month or so ago to resident "hf 21 is stoopid" @lordbutterfly. Promotion was the excuse to extract rewards.
It has been a few days. This is a marathon, not a sprint.
I know, it's just that the whole focus of the debates I see taking place is all about how to keep things as they are. Rather than to a step back with the full picture in mind to see what would be the best things to build when considering individual returns + added value to Steem.