Maybe the most controversial topic on Steemit currently is that of vote bots - Are they good? bad? How do they influence the original intent of the Steem blockchain and how might we respond to their use in the most productive way? Let's explore!
image source: coin sutra
Definitions
In his Banned Ted Talk, physicist Russell Targ described 'proof' as being:
Evidence that is so strong it would be statistically unreasonable to deny it.
So the Steemit catchphrase of 'proof of brain' is a way of describing that Steem provides strong evidence to show that someone has a brain and uses it well, by their posts reaching the trending pages and receiving high payouts as a result of the Steem user community upvoting them.
I use my own catchphrase to describe what actually takes place here as a result of votes being for sale and the voters with the most money having the most power to determine which posts reach to the trending page: 'proof of wallet'.
'Proof of wallet' is strong evidence that someone has a significant amount of money in their wallet, since their posts reach the trending pages and receive high payouts primarily as a result of the money used to get them there.
Brain vs Wallet
Money can be acquired in numerous ways, ranging from fraud/crime through to gifts/inheritance, creativity, work and 'luck'. Therefore, anyone can end up with large amounts of money with little or no demonstrated ability to use their brain in constructive, valuable and powerful ways. So 'Proof of Wallet' is not the same as 'Proof of brain'.
The value of Steemit and Steem are more effected by the presence of brain than by the presence of money, since the financial investments in Steem are directly raised or lowered in value in response to good/bad decisions being made with the product/system. If we think that the future of Steem is strong due to it's policies and functionality being highly effective and in tune with what users need, then the coin will go up in value due to increased demand - so it is important that we recognise the value of wise use of 'brains' when it comes to assessing the future success of Steem. This is further reinforced by the entire premise of the Steem system, being one that rewards brains and not one that just rewards those who hold tokens. The idea is that Steem is a utility system that provides a social function that generates value in and of itself, it is not just an investment opportunity in the same way that a savings account is.
Investing pure money into a project or idea will result in an increase of available resources, but without the brains needed to drive and guide the project, the money amounts to nothing much at all.
Do Vote Bots respect 'proof of brain' or 'proof of wallet' more?
When we buy/sell votes, we bypass 'proof of brain' entirely since the subjective valuation of posts is completely replaced with the method of 'valuation' of posts being put up for sale. Vote bots mean that payouts and valuation of posts can be entirely determined by the users' ability to pay (hence, 'proof of wallet'). By buying/selling votes we therefore devalue the idea of 'proof of brain' and instead promote a system of 'proof of wallet' - which is not an optimal choice if we ourselves value 'proof of brain'.
Vote bots are somewhat unwise if we are intending to stick to the original concept of Steemit.
If vote bots are a problem, then why do I use them?
Sometimes I use vote bots. I used them quite a lot in my earlier days on Steemit and then stopped. Now I am using them sparingly, my decision making process largely comes down to how much I want particular posts to be seen and how many organic upvotes my posts are receiving. I would rather not use them and I will probably stop again after thinking about the contents of this post!
Once a particular 'market force' becomes dominant and the resources of a system are directed according to it, we can find life difficult when trying to be sustained by the system and also going against that dominant force. If the majority of resources are controlled by people who think in a particular way, then the resources (and the destiny of the system) cannot be redirected until either a new way is found to gain resources by those who think differently, or until those with the resources choose/learn to think differently. In other words:
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
I don't like the situation much, but bringing a change in thinking to such a large group of people who are often happy to buy votes - is a long term project!
I have found that I am unable to get much traction on Steemit without either having support from whales or buying votes. If one or the other does not occur, then I cannot increase my resources or fully expose my hard work to the community of potential voters.
Evolving our thinking about vote bots
I value 'Proof of Brain' more than 'Proof of Wallet' and I think maybe Steemit Inc. does too. Therefore I must act to make 'Proof of Brain' a higher priority than 'Proof of Wallet'. The alternative is to be, at best, hypocritical and at worst I may participate in causing distrust and devaluation of the Steem system among new users who are frustrated AND as a result I may lose the value of my wallet - not very smart!
Support for one or other ideology allows it to flourish and inspires others to support it. The existence and dominance of one or the other is only evidence that others support it, it is not evidence that it is necessary or better than the other. So therefore, I do not need to feel I am obliged to support one or the other simply because of the preferences of others. If I prefer one, then I should do everything I can do to act to support it and not the other. However, to go against the majority opinion means that I need to take action to help bring awareness to the benefits of choosing the 'road less traveled' - which in this case appears to be the option of not buying votes! (If we look at the steembot tracker site, we will typically see that vote selling bots are sold out every time currently!).
Does Supporting 'Proof of Wallet' over 'Proof of Brain' Lower Overall Post Quality?
As long as those with the most money can always buy their way to the top of the lists, they will do so - if only for their own advertising and as a result, the posts most seen will not be so likely to be reflective of the overall community's own desires. If those who work the hardest to craft quality posts do not actually get rewarded as a result, while those with the largest wallets continue to receive the top payouts, then motivation will be lost among the creative thinkers and, yes, post quality may drop significantly. There are no doubt many users who have left Steemit over time, simply because they see this dynamic playing out and don't like it.
So, since 'energy flows where attention goes' - the more we focus on the results of 'big wallets', the more we lost sight of the results of 'big brains' - unless everything is working so well that 'big brains always have big wallets'. Does history show us that those with the most money also serve humanity the most effectively?
Conclusions
I strongly suggest choosing the 'Proof of Brain' reality over the 'Proof of Wallet' reality wherever possible. This does not negate the use of wallets and money, I am simply saying that we can choose to support either reality through our intentions and decisions of who to support. For example, there are witnesses who are doing well whose only obvious 'service' is to run vote bots - while there are other witnesses who go un-voted for who may be offering more useful services and skills to the community that better align to the 'Proof of Brain' version of things.
Paradoxically, we actually stand a better chance of increasing our own wallets by supporting 'proof of brain' over 'proof of wallet' since by supporting intelligence/wisdom we allow a wider range of people to use the network and thrive than is possible if 'the biggest wallets win'. This, in turn, improves the public image of the system, brings in more users and probably then brings in more investment too. We are also forced to be more social and that will help us to forge real connections that result in more support and organic upvotes. Are we really so lazy as to just 'buy imaginary friends'?
In short:
We need to prove the existence of our own brains by proving the concept of 'proof of brain' in order to increase the value of brains and to then increase the investment in the 'Proof of Brain Network' (Steem) and increase the value of our wallets too!
Good, I'm glad we got that straightened out.
8o)
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
Vote @ura-soul for Steem Witness!
View My Witness Application Here
