I think what @grumpycat is doing is okay. He wants to stop bid-bots vote-bots and vote sellers from supporting people like @phoenix-group. A steal/take an image from somewhere on the internet, put a number before the picture, then call on a bid-bot, a vote-bot, a vote-seller, and take money from the reward pool, while making money off the back of a hard working photographer, who is likely barely able to feed his family. So @grumpycat has my support. Also if anyone's content is so valuable to steemit, why do they need to use a bid bot a vote bot or a vote seller? By using those services you and anyone else that uses them are stealing from the reward pool, and the only one making money is the bid bot owners and vote sellers. It is not @grumpycat that needs to wake up and smell the coffee, it is the buyers, and like the saying goes, "buyer beware".
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I also was little hesitant to use bid-bots but I saw video by @joeparys where he explains why these made at first place. It allows people to invest in Steem and promote their posts and grow on the platform, esp. Minnows.
Else why will I invest my USDs into Steem. Lot of people have invested and this also supports the Steem economy and the model of development [which is a Village model].
I am making these statement after reading the Steemit White Paper and Steemit 101 and the philosophy on which Steem is based upon. Hope I made myself clear. Also you need to read @firedream to know the subject deeper and why @grumpycat is not all pure and white.
And the biggest question is why only he is behaving like this, as if he is appoointed as a Guardian Angle by Ned Scott himself.
@grumpycat does not care what you post - only that you use HIS annointed bid-bots - and NOT the ones that he himself uses.
He upvotes his own comments and those of his sock account @checkthisout to the tune of hundreds of dollars, while down-voting others for doing what he does.
I am aware of some of the actions he has taken, and how he appears. His check this out was to show people in as dramatic way as possible how the self vote can work. There are no rules governing how a person votes. Even @ned has used the self upvote on comments.
What he is trying to do is set a standard of know who you are buying from, who you are selling to. Pawn shop owners in general try to run honest establishments, yet they are still held liable if they knowingly buy/sell stolen property.
Consumer reports does not care what product you buy/use. A lot of people use the consumer reports and UL listed labels when deciding on a product to buy, as an indicator that it is a safe and reliable product and that it meets certain standards. People decide what Movies to buy and bring into their homes for their children to view based on the Movie rating criteria, because they trust the Standard.
That is what @grumpycat is/has been trying to do for the last several months regarding these bid-bots. He has tried to get a voluntary minimal standard in the past, that did not work. He has a lot of money invested, and now to protect that investment, and to protect the users, he has implemented his higher standard. If people don't like it they do not need to use his bots, or the bots that comply with his standards, he has more than adequately let people know what actions he is willing to take to protect his investment.
If you really do not like what and how he is trying to protect his investment, all you have to do to silence him is invest more than $1,925,344.68, (his current account value), and downvote him to where he is no longer able to defend and protect his investment.
Yep - money rules! I'm sure his methods of lining his own pockets are very altruistic.
At the rate he's withdrawing his holdings, we won't need to worry about him much longer!
Umm, Even if they did invest 2 Million USD, that would not preclude him from downvoting and/or resteeming. His method is aimed at a single issue and that is last minute votes by bidbots. That's it. Not plagiarism, not low quality posts. Furthermore, he only explores a single option for dealing with the problem. This shows a lack of perspective and a tendency to disregard the power of the community as a whole.