@steemitblog, I actually stopped doing much on Steem once I realized bots make more money than real people, on an average user basis. Established community members, brands and channels do fine I guess, but the average user gets more bots commenting on their post than real people, and if you check out these bot wallets most of them are more profitable than the casual user, so shame on you for allowing that to happen at all.
New users now have to compete with a layer of paid bots before they ever get to compete with other content on an even footing.
Anyone who is a proponent of bots, simply has figured out how to game the system and doesn't want to reduce an income stream, Steem itself is probably a culprit here. Bots dominating the community are the ultimate death knell to a platform who's entire goal is people producing content and a system of upvoting.
- You cannot allow bots on the platform, at all, period the end.
- Should you fail #1, you cannot allow them to be profitable, at all, period the end. If they are economically viable, people will use them, you must close this loop to fix the core game theory issue here.
- Should you fail #1 and #2, you cannot allow them to be the only thing the average user, who isn't economically killing it, sees and interacts with on their own posts and the average post they might find
This is one of those 3 strikes things, and lately, Steem has been 1-2-3-your out because this would make the platform run by bots and antithesis to itself.
RE: Improving the Economics of Steem: A Community Proposal