#### A recent discussion with @dzone ended in him [posting this](https://steemit.com/steemit/@dzone/booster-and-buying-votes-is-the-very-best-for-steemit-com-de-en) about why buying votes benefits our platform.

Now I’m quite used to people acknowledging that while buying and selling votes is not beneficial to our platform, they still do it for personal profit. That’s ok, it’s everyone’s own decision what to do with the STEEM, SBD and SP in his/her wallet.
But a guy believing those practices are not only profitable for himself, but also benefit our community – well, that’s astonishing, original and worth an analysis of arguments and a reply.

## Arguments

![annoyed-3126442_960_720.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmTAhz74iiX7EsZUj6mQWgsPH93tWpNtuBehkpFfxi6sTC/annoyed-3126442_960_720.jpg)
<sup>*Sorry, just can't follow your "logic" [Pic source](https://pixabay.com/en/annoyed-woman-irate-angry-mad-3126442/)*</sup>

Let’s first summarize on which grounds @dzone comes to this conclusion:

His first premise ist hat the value of the steem blockchain can be determined accuratly – it’s simply the total value of existing STEEM and SBD. Thus, the value of our blockchain is determined by demand and supply of STEEM and SBD.
Now, he concludes the following actions to be harmful for STEEM/SBD prize:
1) selling STEEM or SBD for other coins, as it increases the supply
2) exchanging STEEM/SBD for steem power, as it increases the supply of STEEM/SBD
3) Having unused STEEM/SBD in the wallet, as using them would increase the reward pool and lead to higher reward payouts

Also, he found arguments why vote-selling/buying/delegations to boosters are good for the STEEM price:
1)	coins are circulated, thus less supply
2)	the virtual holding time of STEEM/SBD increases for 7 days, again decreasing supply
3)	the power of curators is diminished, which leads to a broader range of visible topics
# The obvious answer: I’m calling **bullshit** on that one.
Let’s do it old-school, step by step:
> The value of the platform can be accurately measured by the comma, in its price against reference currencies. […] these courses are determined by the rules of supply and demand […]

I’ll give you a pass for that, though I think it oversimplifies the situation. The problem here is which reference currency to chose. As it is mostly traded for BTC, I think the value of the blockchain (not the platform, there is an important difference!) **in BTC** follows the rules of supply and demand. However, it’s not so easily translated to fiat value, as there another factor – the current supply/demand of BTC against fiat money, which has nothing to do with STEEM’s value at all, plays an important role.
Let’s just assume you are right.
Then your first assumption:
> Who sells his SBD/STEEM against other coins, increases the supply of SBD/STEEM with constant demand.

Is obviously true. So far, so good. 

But this is also the first major error in thinking. Because the SBD price is irrelevant for calculating the total value of our platform. The SBD is a token which is worth the promise that it can be converted to STEEM at a price of 1$. Each SBD is a voucher for 1$ of freshly "printed" STEEM. Not more, not less.
The value of our blockchain is determined in STEEM, and STEEM only.
Thus, selling SBDs is not damaging tot he value oft he blockchain, while selling STEEM arguably is.

Now it get’s surreal:
> Who exchanges his SBD/STEEM for Steempower, also increases the offer of SBD/STEEM, with the consequences shown.

This ranks high in the list of the most illogical stuff I’ve ever read. Please think again. If you power up (i.e. “exchange STEEM for Steempower”), you pull STEEM out of the supply and bind it for at least 3 months. Thus, the supply is **LOWERED**, and the value of STEEM **INCREASED**.
Similar error for exchanging SBD to STEEM and then powering up (i.e. “exchanging SBD for Steempower”). First, you buy STEEM with SBDs. That has two effects: The supply for SBDs goes up, which damages the SBD price. But that is irrelevant for the value of the blockchain, as explained above. Second, the STEEM demand increases, and so does its value and the value of the blockchain. And third, you bind the STEEM for 3 months again, as described above.

Thus, powering up – whatever coin you start with – is good for the value of the blockchain. Period.
> Who let his SBD/STEEM unused simply slows down the growth of the platform. These coins used with voting increase the Curationspool and thus the amount of the distributions (I'm not sure)

First, I’m pretty sure you mean the reward pool, not a „curationspool“. Second, SBDs have nothing to do with the distribution of the reward pool. As far as I know, the reward pool is split between all posts depending on how much SP was used to vote them, and I don’t see why liquid STEEM would decrease the reward pool – I’m quite sure it doesn’t, and that you are wrong here too, but maybe one of my well-informed readers could clarify this point.
But I agree that powering up would be better for the blockchain than having liquid STEEM, for the reasons described above.

On we go:
> But if you use your SBD/STEEM completely for voting or give/sell your voting power, be it through delegations to boosters, sales to boosters,it helps the platform to increase.

Uh, I doubt that, why would it?

> Supply and demand of SBD/STEEM shift in favor of supply, the price goes up. 

No it doesn’t. You don’t bind your STEEM like by powering up. Instead you are sending you STEEM to a bot provider. The bot provider will sell it to finance his server costs and to make profit. So instead of lowering the supply you are **increasing** it, and you’re encouraging the selling of STEEM for other coins and fiat.
**And yes, that damages the value of the blockchain. Your own words.**
> The shortage is also causing SBD/ STEEM's prices to remain more resilient in case of price decline, as buying is more likely when price falls.

As explained, you are not creating a shortage in STEEM by sending them to a bot provider.
> The holding time of SBD/STEEM is extended, because it allows you to generate a profit without being active.

As explained, the holding time is not extended, because you just forward the coins to a bot provider who can do with them as he pleases, and will often just sell them. 
The second part of the sentence is the most honest piece by you so far. It’s about profiting without doing anything. And not about helping the blockchain. And that’s ok, but please stop lying to yourself.
> The power of the curators, who by using of curationtrails vote or do not vote exclusively according to characteristics determined by themselves, (is now) opposed to another power. 

Oh, these sinister, bad, evil curators! Using their vote to reward content that they deem worthy of support instead of voting for themselves or just for the highest bidder. Help, they have to be stopped!!!
*Facepalm*

> This increases the visible variety of topics and prevents a narrowing of the theme and opinion corridor in the medium and long term.

There are dolphins, whales, and community curators valuing the most different topics. Some vote for crypto analytics, some for flat-earthers, some for people who prove flat-earthers wrong, some for extremist political opinions of all color, others for jokes, food, photography, different languages etc. etc.
Every topic is covered, and there is no narrowing of the opinion corridor on Steemit that I could spot. If you found your nieche, and you constantly produce good content in it, you will be rewarded – after building a followership. There’s an audience for everything here.

### And that was it? A rather weak argumentation, I would say. Now hear me out, here come’s my case:
# Why boosters and vote buying damages the blockchain
1.	As explained above, it shifts STEEM to the service providers who often sell them and thus increase the supply on the markets.
2.	Even if it’s a break-even business for the vote buyer, he circulates STEEM instead of powering up, which would give him additional voting power and would a) decrease the STEEM supply and increase the value and b) help in getting a better distribution of wealth here. The more minnows power up, the more cumulative power small accounts have. Don’t cry for the whales, help yourselves, be strong in numbers.
3.	Votes that are bought before human curators can discover and vote your content effectively steal curation rewards from those (early voters get an extra piece of the cake). Similar to early self-voting, you cheat your audience and followers for what they should get to read and evaluate your posts. That undermines communities and those dolphins/whales might stop voting you, or might consider selling their vote more profitably instead of using their investment to reward content creators, in which case everyone here – i.e. the blockchain – will suffer.
4.	The reward pool is distributed among all voted posts. For every single vote paid for, people that were voted for by other steemians get less. This is counteracting the spirit of the steem whitepaper (get rewarded for good content) as much as excessive self-voting and circle-jerking.
5.	If you sell votes, you completely lose control over what you’re voting on. Again, it is more profitable than joining a curation trail. But with the latter option, you can chose which content and project to support with you vote. 
Selling your vote is like investing in a stock portfolio that includes arms industry businesses and African diamond mines. It is not illegal, and if you don’t care about morals, you can. **But stop pretending you’re doing anyone a favor by doing it!** 
6.	Atm, already more than 17% of all votes are paid for on Steemit. As said, if this further increases, we will get to a point where the payout will almost exclusively depend on paid votes. Yes, you are right, this is strictly hypothetical, as people are not all making the same decision. But by saying this, you also admit that your business model solely relies on others not acting as selfish as you are. And while this is of course not illegal, it is damaging the community, the morale of more socially acting authors… And thus the blockchain.

# Concluding remarks
Dear @dzone: Of course, you will again disagree. You are past listening to me, and that’s ok – you don’t have to. I’m writing this for all the other people who are considering using bots. 

To those I want to say: **Please don’t. And if you do, please wait a few hours for curators to be able to vote first.**

Bots might be profitable in the short-term, but they can never substitute the necessity of content. To make real rewards, you still need humans to vote you. And they will do that somewhat more reluctant if you’ve already triggered 10 bots and thus curated yourself.
Plus, you are (imo) damaging the blockchain that you co-own.

I am **NOT** telling you what to do. Steemit is free. Do whatever you want. I just want to remind you that with freedom comes responsibility.