>If you're a stakeholder that leases delegation, you might find that the people you delegate to are not adding any value to the network that gives your token value." please explain how that sentence is different what you said here "One mans garbage is another mans treasure."

It is the difference between a post that attracts other people (which can only be guestimated based on views, votes and comments) and a post that has only been valued by a bot (based on the post getting only bot comments and almost only bot votes.  It's not that there posts alone are "bad", just that these people didn't need to do anything to get these rewards, and the more going to them, the less going to people who are voted manually, by real people who can make a human decision that is not based on the money they received to vote for the post.

>The folks buying SBD to promote their treasure to get ahead and earn more steem is not adding value?

It is and it isn't is very true.  In the short term it is.  They put their own money into the system to gain exposure and this has an immediate benefit to the stake holder selling the vote, and a short term benefit to the guy buying it.  But more often these people are not promoting a post that will make them money (such as what adverts usually do) but rather the buyer is under the illusion that they are getting more money from the upvote than they're spending on it, not realising that the first quarter of their rewards goes to the bot.  So what happens after these people realise they're not making the money they thought they were?  Well I think all stake holders lose value when steem becomes known as a scam.  But you're free to disagree with me.

>What if they think all of steemit's content is crap? And they believe in STEEM why not earn some Steem to again increase stake.

I do think this is likely, but what that means is the content creators here are wasting their valuable time.  Rather than just watch, I would prefer to create a dialogue so that everybody knows where they stand.  And if content creators find another platform that reward them better, then the stake these people are collecting will very suddenly be worthless.

>What makes a good writer?

A manual curator who uses their upvote to encourage good writing makes a good writer.  (same goes for all types of content).  That curator does not have to speak English themselves.  They may want to support their own language.  This is why I included where these people are from, since I noticed many of @freedom's customers are not native speakers themselves and are selling using their own language.

>You see STEEM is another crytocurrency just like any other, If you can see it this way you might have a different view.

It might be now, if this is how stakeholders choose to use it, but it was a much more undervalued token when it was harder to get it without hard work that attracted investors.  If you consider how valuable YouTube, Facebook etc became, then you'll know what potential steem *could* have if it were used as a ***social* network** rather than just a mining rig.

>The bot owners are not doing it for profit, since delegation is extremely expensive.

Please explain this.  Unless you're talking about some indirect cost I haven't considered, delegation costs 1 added week to a power down.  There may be an opportunity cost in terms of curation rewards, but this could be used instead to employ manual curators that would make steem the platform where **the best **content creators** (according to stake weighted consensus) would come to earn cryptocurrency, and bring the world of cryptocurrency to their followers.

>you seem to forget steem and steemit is a very massive ecosystem which is still evolving.

Please don't talk down on me or underestimate me.  I'm well aware of it evolving and I'm even more aware of what needs to happen if we want it to.