Look at poor little @coininstant being trolled like the bitch he is by an automated bot.  Jump monkey, jump!!  Good boy.

This doesn't really need to adjust to the price of Steem because the idea is to limit the number of content elements which can be profitably rewarded by milkers (to in turn limit the amount of effort required by altruistic volunteer abuse fighters). That's a function of the size of the reward pool which is a set amount of STEEM. The price doesn't change that.

To put rough numbers on this the reward pool is about 50k STEEM per day. If the cutoff is 16 STEEM that means there can't be more than 3000 content items which are milking candidates (and probably less since rewards will be somewhat concentrated, not spread out evenly on 3000 comments). That's a number (or really a range) that is likely feasible for abuse fighters to keep on top of. 300k would not be.

>In short what exactly do we gain here? 

Decreasing author's reward.

> How many top 20 witnesses are running a bid bot?

You've hit the nail on the head as to why the EIP may have been carefully reworked, or even didn't properly address this issue in the first place.

At the end of the day, until these practices are weeded out nothing will change! At this point will we never get a chance to find out what a reward system that de-centivizes vote selling even looks like, when so many of the top 100 witnesses make their bread and butter running vote selling services. As you say, they will just veto the hardfork if it threatens their interests. 

Or maybe I'm wrong? Not sure I care at this point.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/raj808)

EiP is threatening the bottom-line for traditional bid-bots owners & co FYI.

1.) Rewards will be reduced in general.
2.) A higher percentage of rewards will be dependant on how good the post is behaving; or whether it's being downvoted (big risk due to the downvote-pool).

---

Everybody can think what they want about myself and Smartsteem.com, but at this point in time, my actions and decisions are completely in line for the good of Steem. Otherwise, why am I still holding hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Steem?

I **want** this blockchain to succeed and its currencies to become more valuable! If this reduces the rewards people generate who aren't staked in the system at first, maybe that's a good thing, don't you think? Otherwise, Steem is just a place where free-loaders can get some STEEM & SBD posting content without risk, while stakeholders are the ones taking the beating since they're locked in at the same time as other cryptocurrencies have a bull-run.

EiP will take steps in the direction of people wanting to be a hodlers of Steem and I'd say that's a very good thing for us.

>The only solution is a complete overhaul from scratch. When they get around to it, and is designed by people who understand elementary human behaviour, I'll consider returning.

Agreed. Maybe a small group of people should put in a proposal to SPS to fund an economic team. Tweaking the same parameters every HF is just not going to do what is promised - we need to look deeper.

I’ve talked about this for about two and a half years, but this is basically why I’m in favor of higher curation rewards:

>*If we want more and better curation, we need to incentivize it. If we want more investment, we need to incentivize it. And if we truly understand that social media is not comprised of 100% bloggers and commenters – that the simple act of voting on content is actually the largest chunk of interaction – then we need to make it more lucrative for content consumers to easily invest and earn for the quality work that they contribute.*

>*Curation rewards are that mechanism for bringing in more investors, for likely keeping them more engaged, and for bringing in a wider base of users that are not solely here to create low-quality content and not promote it, then hope for big rewards...and then ultimately become disappointed for not earning from their lack of quality, effort, and experience with social media and networking.*

That excerpt was taken from here:
https://steemit.com/steem/@ats-witness/block-change-you-can-believe-in

Yes, literally! *Everyone* knows that! Duh! **_It's all so simple!!!_**

I agree.  A simple directory creation for upvote purchasing may also be the answer.  Allot one spot over the top twenty (non-botted payments), say the 20th one, at that, and have a random pop up feature that has any paid for/bot voted on any given search or hash tag.  Then you would have to define what a bot necessarily is.  My definition- a group of voting delegation for the apparent overwhelming purpose of selling votes with little to no precondition of content quality or other affiliation to that group or other subgroup in benefiting blockchain growth through original creativity or original programming.  I use an example.... @steemmonsters (or the re-branded name of @splinterlands may be more appropriate).  They would be the golden goose as far is this is concerned.  Creating alternate tokens, building an upvote pool that was created for the purpose of benefiting their players that have done some level of content creation that is original and commentary on their game with forums now that are also tokenized.  Versus bidbot X, that upvotes the person with steem/sbd ready to spend, and yes does some level of quality control but cannot be expected to patrol thousands of posts a day if they are big enough as a vote service.  If more whales saw the benefits in delegating portions of their steem to causes like this, and would even actively participate or even sell the assets generated due to delegating to this venture the economy would open up... beyond belief.  The upvote that carried by SM also is limited, so even the most heavily promoted post is no more than like 7-$8 at the moment, so there is certainly no guarantee that that vote purchasing will guarantee that even **that** post is guaranteed to land in overall trending searches.  If the paid for upvoting services were collected, and listed less prominently and openly displayed as "promoted posts," again, showing up every so often rather having all posts at the top, then maybe that could also show some level of integrity of voted posts.  Also with the hike in curation I am also for the bigger fish curating more because they should, they are bringing the capital to the table.  The people that are whales on here are not people that went to STINC HQ and said "give me your steem," then ran out the back door and rode away in getaway cars, somehow they earned it whether we agree or disagree in how they did earn it under rules for the blockchain at the time is beside the fact, it is theirs to do with it what they wish.  Long story short, opening the economy up to more users and getting actual movement in steem and SP to people that are here and doing legit work and building communities is where you are going to win.  People showing up need to have a reason to stay, simply getting them here is not enough.  There is a lot of support and energy that goes into that.  When respectable retention becomes possible over time then we will truly see changes.  I think labeling any article that has any vote within the post under a clearly defined definition of bought votes and is listed as promoted will be a great start in my humble opinion to having some credibility, among also generating some diversity in thought among those that are at the top.  It seems very "group-thinkish" in how resources can be spread, or the group-think is very heavily enforced because real answers for re-invigorating the steemit economy is not being allowed into the hardforks in my humble opinion, at least since I have been here.

But why are you the new bidbot authority? lol

Exactly, those cheating authors using those cheating bid-bots cheated the steem economic model.

Positive perception... is what is destroyed through vote selling. I've said this over and over again in posts I've written as well as comments.

Any serious high quality content creator runs a mile when they see how the system works on steem. The levels of shit content on steem aren't just the result of con artists, plagiarism and spam artists... it's also the result of a huge amount of people of quality either leaving, or never joining in the first place when they see how the system is set up.

Believe me, I pitched an idea for a steem community marketing up-and-coming authors to a friend who works in publishing in early 2018. After many conversations the jist of what she said was; that the system was far too corrupt for them to get involved and risk reputation or their clients interest.

Big mainstream entertainment industry investment is what will bring huge value to steem. And this will not happen the way things are working now.

>Are far as I understand it and seen it pitched, the curve has nothing to do with bid bots.

I'm just going by what I've read on @steemitblog [posts and their comment sections](https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/improving-the-economics-of-steem-a-community-proposal), in the posts and comment sections of other users, and in off-chain chats. 

>The curve is to ~~prevent~~ discourage large stake holders from splitting their stake to smaller accounts and voting their own spam.

Yeah...it would have been great if this same reasoning wasn't summarily dismissed by Ned/STINC back in 2017 when they rammed linear rewards down our throats without ever addressing why there was a wholesale change of protocol rationale and coherence. 

Oh, wait...Ned did explain it a few times by saying previous protocols were "evil." So there's that, I guess.

Anyway...for the record: I don't care that a lot of people favor these changes because they think it will impact bid bots. I am in favor of more-than-linear and 50/50 rewards because it just makes sense economically and because of the ability to mitigate "abuse." 

I was in favor of these protocols 2.5 years ago when I wrote about them. Hopefully, we'll get back to some of the rest of those ideas that were ignored back then and actually improve things around here. I doubt anything meaningful will happen though. It seems that Steem may be headed for obsolescence due to a plethora of "leadership" mistakes and non-existent marketing. If we're lucky though, maybe this place could be fun again in the distant future.

The "dividing account abuse" explanation has never really made much sense to me. A large stakeholder who is willing to go to such lengths to obtain something close to 100% of upvote will most likely just find another avenue if that particular one closes. Circular voting or vote selling (off-chain if necessary) will still be possible.

However the impact on real small accounts, new accounts, and engagement through comments will be substantial. I would argue that the pros of the CLRC change do not match up to the cons and it is a part of the EIP that could be dropped, without dramatically altering the main pillars of the proposed change.

Always read the updates but given the history around here it seems like something ALWAYS comes up before SMT. Forgive my optimism for being diminished. I do really hope this is going to happen now.

glad to have you back!

@andrarchy this is off topic but I see you're being downvoted as well.  Let's change things, hmmm?  Instead of comments being *greyed out* at -0.000000000000000000001, let's change that so comments can't be greyed out until -1.000000000000000.  Someone would have to deduct $1 first.  -50 cents, still there.  Catch my drift?