RE: Delegation for Upvote: @Upvu and Co or @justyy?
I've been seeing a lot of criticism of the SC01 team lately. Sometimes it may be justified, but observing the actions of the team and the rare cases when they enter the discussion, I can conclude that the SC01 team is acting solely in the interests of the platform.
In a response to @papi.mati, the SC01 team noted that historically, all initiatives and developments have been initiated by the community. Responding to the lack of development, the SC01 team responded that they monitor and support the work of @coding-gorilla and other developers. From this we can conclude that the Steemit team, although it has the greatest resources, wants the platform to develop decentrally again. Why? Because it will attract people and investors here.
We also know that the SC01 team does not support bid bots and does not vote for posts supported by bid bots. Then why don't they block them? The answer here can be obtained by mentioning that they act exclusively in the interests of the platform. If they block the bid bots, it will lead to massive Power Down and STEEM sales, and consequent depreciation. This can lead to the death of Steemit. Given this, it can be assumed that the SC01 command tolerates the existence of bid bots, but does not approve of it.
In the case of justyy, I assume that the witness received such support due to the fact that until recently there was a catastrophic shortage of developers. There aren't many of them now, but they are appearing little by little.
In general, after the split, Steemit is gradually recovering and now making sharp movements is very dangerous. On the other hand, such a soft policy supports injustice, when those who make an effort earn much less than those who use bots. Just imagine, if there were no upvu, tipu and others, how many SP would be involved in the curation of content, in Curation Trails and others. Then talented bloggers could make really good money, and that would attract more and more new authors.
Of course, the activity of bid bots can be adjusted with softer steps. For example, oblige them to pay STEEM not to shareholders but to community curators, impose fines for plagiarism, etc.
The simplest solution has already been introduced. Delegating to justyy excludes from booming - I have in my community at least 5 users who canceled the delegation to that witness after they heard from me that they could earn more if they wouldn't share their SP with that sort of accounts.
I the cases above there are spammer and not ordinary users, I do not know if you have looked closer into the blogs
I see how in some communities sc01, sc06 supports mediocre posts by the same community members, especially if they are admin, but there is a complete disregard for quality content. It turns out that no one needs high-quality posts on Steemit. Who does upvote on behalf of sc01, sc06?
Maybe they support the admins because they do other important work. I'm not saying that's right.
probably, yes. 😂😂😂
I agree that in the past the initiatives were initiated by communities but each of those projects let's come back to Steemcleaners got a delegation from old @misterdelegation. That account delegated for such work. In this case they also delegated from this account but unfortunately the person is not checking who he is supporting. That is what was pointed in this article.
I also have not suggested any sharp movements, actually there was no suggestion of anything.
But that it was a question: why if one system of Upvote for Delegation is bad then another one that is running by Witness is good?
Your question is very interesting. But I don't expect us to get an answer.