>If this is about promotion, then there's already a way out: promotion via burning where posts are mixed with the normal trending/hot page (see SCOT).

This. Has anyone tried to pull request this feature into Steemit itself? Is Steemit Inc. receptive to that model? Failing that, if bidbots are about promotion, I think they should be revenue negative at outset. Just as the community began to enforce bidbots narrowing their vote windows to not vote on content late in the 7 day period, we could equally enforce standards that bidbot votes should result in an initial 20% loss on investment. In what world are advertisers paid to run their ads? If a promoted post can’t make up the difference through organic votes that follow then it deserves to lose money. 

I also don’t see bidbots as a respectable use of passive investor delegation. With the rise of projects that pay out a fair share of curation rewards, like Actifit, Wherein, etc. as well as new passive curation services like Curangel, I don’t think it’s beneficial to encourage bidbots as investment opportunities.

The “next EIP” doesn’t need to be a hardfork. It should be a combination of revamping the inbuilt promoted post/Steem burn system, promoting new organic curation/passive investment models, and enforcing community standards on revenue negative bidbot expectations, if simple changes to promoted posts don’t greatly reduce bidbot usage on their own... which I actually believe they would.