Everything you say here is demonstrably true. I am not - at all - saying captchas are a problem free cure. I am only pointing out that there is a way to exclude almost all bots from voting.

This dramatically changes the conversation about bots, as it has previously been accepted that there was no way to do this. Suddenly the impact of bots on rewards distribution, post quality, user retention, and much more, is no longer irrelevant, but critical.

@arcange daily posts charts with Steemit's vital stats. According to his charts, the median payout for the last 30 days was $.01. @paulag of BISteemit has worked out that but ~11% of accounts opened in 2016 remain active - including all the bots and multiples. I think most of us will agree these two stats are related strongly.

Many bots, and the fine people that run them, are dedicated to improving the situation, but even as the use of these bots burgeons such that you can hardly find a post with payout over $1 that didn't turn to votebots for upvotes, the GINI of Steemit continues to get worse.

It is hard to argue that bots aren't making that problem wose. I know that some folks intend to use their bots to fix the problem - that is their very purpose in running the bots.

It's not working.

If 4chan, the enemy of all things good and decent on the internet, free to it's users, and practically devoid of advertising revenue, can afford captchas for every post, I am sure Steemit can. While captchas aren't perfect, users hate them, some ways exist to defeat them, and more will continue to be developed, it is unimaginable that they can be worse than the situation now.

Frankly, none of that is even the crux of the matter, which as @aggroed points out, stems from the way the founders mined Steem and have not used their stakes well to create a robust market for Steem. Steem continues to fall in relation to other cryptos on coinmarketcap, falling over ten places since I joined Steemit in May 2017.

@blocktrades recent proposal to make curation more profitable, publicly endorsed by @ned, just doesn't reflect this reality. It's a way to more concentrate Steem, not broaden distribution.

@aggroed invoked the fell spectre of Ben Bernanke, known as 'Helicopter Ben' for his assertion that getting money into the hands of the public was so vital that he would go up in a helicopter and just push cash over the side. IMHO, that is exactly what needs to happen for Steem to transition from mere tokens to an actual currency. People need to have it in their wallets to be able to use it.

If Steem doesn't get into the wallets of new users, the mined stakes will not appreciate in value. If extant users give up, the present value of Steem will vanish. Median payouts of $.01 practically guarantees this.

@fulltimegeek and @stellabelle have essentially done exactly this, delegating stake to folks they think likely to help broaden distribution, free of charge.

Neither of them, AFAIK, are possessed of mined stakes. The holders of mined stakes should take note of the experiment, and make a decision as to whether they want to be holding currency worth millions, or merely imaginary tokens they can only trade amongst themselves - because no one else has any.

BTW, you still haven't answered the question I asked, and politely asked again. Why don't you want bots prevented from voting on Steemit? I won't ask again.

To paraphrase Rush, if you choose not to speak, you still have spoken. Silence can be louder than any scream.

Thanks!