The bloody revolution of hardfork 21?

in steem •  6 months ago 

Two days! Isn't this exciting?!?

People have been furiously adjusting their votes to maximize their curation, bidbots tweaking their numbers to make sure that they maximize their profits while offering the bare minimum to buyers and as little as possible to delegators without them moving their stake. ooooh... excitement.

You know what is going to be interesting about the downvote aspects to come?

Bidbot operators see what they do as a business. What this means is that downvoting the content of those they vote on is messing with their profits and, they will have to defend their business model, right?

Turf war!

Let's say that there is a bidbot that wants to use its delegated stake to downvote content that it has decided isn't worthy of the reward it is getting. This is likely to be a post that has been upvoted by other bidbots and downvoting it costs them curation return and chases away their customers if the posts start running a loss on the purchase as, these aren't up there for advertising purposes.

This is my corner MoFo!! Don't make me pop a downvote in your ass!

So, a bidbot can't let that shit slide because it means that they are going to attract more of it and in that case, the delegators will "be forced" to move on for a higher ROI. so, they retaliate. But, what can they do? The same. They can target the users of the offending bidbot in an attempt to force a truce, but in doing so - they expose themselves to looking like dicks (more like dicks) and they lose the delegations anyway as it is moved to "less-dickish" bidbots - perhaps one or two who actually think about what they are voting on to some degree and, downvoting on.

Yo corner is mine now, Biaaaadbot!

But, that isn't going to sit well with the other bidbots because if one or two grow in strength heavily, they will be able to control the content of the others by downvoting undeserving rewards away and then some to drive the customer base. Hmm - it could create a bit of a bidbot conundrum as to behave poorly will attract active stake to clip wings combined with a moving of the stake to better behaved bots so, what to do?

Well, perhaps a blacklist isn't good enough, perhaps they will have to defend their businesses by actually making them businesses, with rules and employees and overheads. Overheads aren't great because, that reduces ROI and to think that they are already taking a slice of the pool from delegators as a payment for their services, they will have to tak a larger slice to cover costs.

At some point, this would reduce the ROI to the point that it would likely be better to just curate manually or set some autovoters on content that isn't likely to collect flags and be done with it. Potentially, the easy money of the bidbot era might come to an end if the bots either don't use their downvotes well which means not voting on shit themselves, or retaliate it into a war of stake until they are left with no stake as their delegators flee the ridiculous nature of the operators.

But, the real winners of a bidbot flag war would be... the community. Essentially, a war of the bidbots would be mass redirection of stake from pool to post and back to pool - and once in the pool again, it will be left for those who still have voting stake to distribute, which is all those who do not delegate to the bidbots. The more bidbots flag each other's voted content, the more that is in the pool for the remaining stake to distribute. Potentially if all delegated bidbot stake was redirected back to the pool for redistribution, there would be something like 40% of the pool returned after voting and, that 40% that first took it out wouldn't be able to vote again.

Now, there are only 2.5 free downvotes coming which means it would be more like 10% of the pool returned before they start burning their upvoting power, but combined with the rest of the community using their stake to upvotte decent content and double down on the downvoting of crap, the pool would actually look quite healthy and would somewhat resemble the experiment done by @smooth and @abit in early 2017, the "no whale vote" experiment as the bots start to cancel each other out.

Who else wins?

Curation initiatives. These are going to become much more important as they will be able to help posts climb over that convergent curve and get better rewards. This also means that they will be able to demand better content to vote on. Does anyone remember when getting a @curie vote meant going to trending? Perhaps these days would return after the bidbots go to war as not only will they have more draw power on the pool, with 50/50 curation available and there being little downvote potential on what they support, curation could bring sexy back.

While this could all get real messy, real fast - What I think is that the bidbots that "go to war" on other bidbots essentially guarantee their own demise but they essentially must if what their business does is seen as harmful by active stake willing to wield it. If a bidbot starts using its stake to attack those who downvote the poor quality content of some of their buyers because the downvotes cost them profits, will the delegators keep their stake with it considering there are better options?

Even though many people are scared of downvotes because of the potential for individual abuse, they actually have the potential to stop a much larger degree of abuse and once that is taken care of, there would be more "good acting" stake to combat the more isolated incidents.

While it might not be a pretty sight while it happens and there is likely to be a lot of various forms of collateral damage, we have to remember that this is digital collateral damage. Revolutions however bloody, tend to reset an economy and following them there is a great deal of growth undertaken that improve the situation going forward.

People have constantly argued that it is the community that is the strength of Steem and in this hardfork, we are going to put that heavily to the test through the way people behave with their flags. A strong community member is likely going to be the one that not only upvotes decent content, but finds the shit to downvote too and if that happens, the chances that the ROI o the bidbots is affected and then - they will have to adjust. If they get aggressive and retaliatory, they will lose their delegations so their only move is to really, clean up their act. Of course, this depends on what the community does in a supply and demand economy and what each individual is ethically motivated by.

The last thing to remember is this:

The highest ROI for any current investor of Steem, is to make this the kind of place where many people want to hangout at and interact. The highest earnings for content creators will be by attracting stake to vote on their posts by supplying what is worthy, attractive and compelling for the audience. These two things go hand in hand and I hope that finally we are on the path to harmonizing for the betterment of the better community.

This could be our pivot.

Taraz
[ a Steem original ]

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

LOL don’t make me pop a downvote in your ass... Priceless 🤣

I wonder how long it will take for all this to play out and right itself. There is sure to be a period of adjustment between now and the nirvana explained in your last paragraph. Perhaps it will take a few more Hardforks to smooth out all the rough edges and whatnots. But at least its a start on the journey to a better Steem block chain and a better community.

Until we come to another fork in the road...

"Adjustment" does seem to imply a precise tune up, alignment, new tires doesn't it?

It's smart to put uncertainty together with chosen perspective ahead of time. Like calmly reaching over to put on your seat belt.

The highest earnings for content creators will be by attracting stake to vote on their posts by supplying what is worthy, attractive and compelling for the audience.

This is the reason I stayed with steem once I got here. The idea of a bidbot seems to me to be the antithesis of encouraging quality content. I hope that your hypotheses on the impact of the HF on bidbots proves to correct!

Posted using Partiko iOS

It isn't a flick a switch solution by any means, but will hopefully generate a dynamic that changes the incentive points to shift behaviour

It sure will be interesting. I'm looking forward to the changes and the difference it will make

Posted using Partiko iOS

Maybe it will be a trainwreck, maybe be fantastic. The worst case scenario is that nothing happens in my opinion as that would mean, the community chose not to change at all.

Yea hopefully the best scenario will happen where introverted curators get well-deserved payouts and some type A extroverts go supernova as global internet personalities

Yep. A couple supernova personalities can attract a lot

Indeed a possibility. Still curation will give better rewards, so some people might consider ending their delegation to a bidbot and take their voting in their own hands. Or they simply make sure to power up more Steem.

Posted using Partiko iOS

I think more than half of the pool is controlled by bidbots, some estimates were 70%, correct me if I'm mistaken.

I am not sure so I went very conservatively based on very old numbers.

With all the hype of HF 21...let the agenda begin and see where the chips fall. It will be interesting. Thanks @tarazkp

36 hours thereabouts til we see the first of the fallout :)

A heavyweight batte to watch for sure! I wonder how many users will avoid them now as I believe that about 20% use it although it could have already gone down. Downvoting them in unison can sure put plenty back into the pool!

Posted using Partiko iOS

It is the randomization of outcome that has been needed here. For two years there has been close to zero variation for most users of bidbots, making them far too "safe". If there is to be a war, I think it will be short lived.

I agree and tend to think the eventual demise will be due to the bad optics they create as they desperately try to protect their business model. They will experience a death of a thousand cuts from downvoters, and eventually feel the need to retaliate out of necessity. When they do, that will be the beginning of the end.

protect their business model

It is not much of a model considering @ocdb actually does it all for free and offers the highest rate of return to delegators and buyers.

I am hoping that they will at least be forced into an adjustment that improves the space. The best case scenario is the eventual non-use of them, but that isn't going to happen immediately. Perhaps eventually they will have a place as pure marketing tools, but then the buyers know they are going to pay for it, not get a profit for buying from it.

I don't disagree at all. I think it's a stupid business model, and will become even more stupid post HF21. Those that remain will do so out of stubbornness, mostly because they have so many sunk costs in attempting to make bid bots appear as a feature of the blockchain.

That being said, I believe the 'pulling' of a vote goes against the spirit of the platform period. I also believe that we can accelerate their demise from the grass roots, and I will be participating in that effort. As many others have said on here, the front ends are more than capable of working with people who wish to promote their work at a cost. I vehemently disagree that self-promotion should come at the expense of manipulating and distorting the reward pool.

I for one am excited to see what these changes bring. I really hope that the incentive to reward better content will offset the 50/50 curation rewards for those below the curve and that content will become king again. The downvote will hopefully become our friend and not something to fear.

yeah ! that promise a good fight, thanks for remind it to me and us :)) will watch it !

thanks for your awesome articles 🍀💪🏻!