I've been busy lately, so I haven't been able to join the discussion until now. However, I observed the situation a bit.

As far as I understand, Steem doesn't have any kind of testing ground where you can try new development. Sometimes you have to test a new idea to realize that it was wrong. The risks are even greater when you do not do it yourself, but delegate the work to someone else. Then you cannot always control the results of the experiment in time.

What do we have in the dry residue? The experiment failed. Everyone, including @xpilar, agrees that the results were poor. The bot is disabled, comments are no longer generated.

Should we punish the witness for this by taking our votes away from him? 🤔

Voting for the witness is our right to choose the future blockchain. So, we must dispassionately assess whether this particular witness makes any positive contribution to the ecosystem. For me personally, @xpilar.witness is first of all a door to charity. It is easy to want to make a lot of money and withdraw it for your own benefit. It is much harder to use the part for those in need. @xpilar.witness resources help me and other fund members raise funds for @wox-helpfund. These funds are then used to do amazing things, giving people a glimmer of hope.

Blockchain can serve a variety of purposes. This is not only development and enrichment. The Steem blockchain is unique in its social component, it is unique in that we can help people at least a little. The charitable component is no less important than new developments. Steem is now always associated with charity.

@wox-helpfund is one of the largest charity funds on the Steem blockchain. I believe that the top 20 witnesses should have a witness who organized such a charitable activity. This is my personal opinion.

@xpilar, of course, supports other tools, such as curation trails, SP rental, the ability to create fan bases. But the most important thing for me is his charitable activity.