Should Steem Be Rewarding 'Proof of Brain' or 'Proof of Wallet'? Plus, Are Vote Bots Good/Bad?
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
Your conclusion holds much traction with me my brother for whilst some hold a majority in the sense of money, hence voting power, then they can control, essentially, by proxy, content. "Brain power" or creativity is a much fairer scale by which to approach the content of others for it reveals a lot more about the creators and helps to provide colour and knowledge to other users. I see steemit like a garden. It is better that it is tended by those who wish it to flourish rather than by contractors who want to tarmac it. Peace and Love.
Nicely said!
Bots are not the problem, they just evolve around the rules of the system. The current rules (since HF19) make it profitable to buy votes and self-vote, which favours proof-of-wallet.
You got a 1.64% upvote from @allaz courtesy of @hueso!
This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately and one issue I think Steemit has is the ineffectiveness of it's own built in promotional system. The act of clicking on a separate page that consists of ONLY promoted posts is poor design IMHO.
Imagine if youtube had a commercials channel that was only ads, and people were expected to go there and volunteer to be advertised to.
No...I don't think so.
I think what they should do is copy what other social networks have done and
This way we can still address the problem that every new user is going to have, which is getting initial traction. So if they want to pay, they can promote their post, and if it's good content, they'd have their shot at the masses, but we'd be easily able to get rid of the spam, and the Trending page hogs that pay to stay there for days at a time in all the top spots.
This way, that method of abusing bots, should become unprofitable. Especially if we combine that with coordinated downvoting for obvious abusers, but honestly I don't even think that would be necessary once it became obvious that that tactic doesn't work anymore.
Yes, that is a better solution and I have suggested it several times before and also a method of improving downvote visibility. So far though, my comments have apparently been ignored.
Perfectly said. I wanted to write pretty much similar article, because I totally agree with you. Unfortunately we live on planet where we are so dependent on money, so most of people are chasing only money. Like in everyday life, it's same on Steemit. Numbers are no.1, quality who cares...in most of the cases of course. Most of people look at Steemit as chance for money grabbing, not realizing true power Steemit can have. I wonder how much people with huge SP ever try to find good under valuated content. In my opinion very few.
In 99% of cases trending page is not reflection of 'proof of brain'. Most of post there are because of payed voting bots. That is 'proof of wallet' and nothing else.
In my opinion core of the problem is we allow ourselves to be manipulated into believing money chasing is the most important thing in life. Manipulators created system where you need to have money, so people participating in that system are pushed into state where they will do anything to acquire money. That is happening on Steemit also.
Only true change on Steemit goes beyond Steemit. It's about transforming our perception from 'more money for me' to heart perspective which only can lead to true change. I know it can sound like some 'new age' mambo jumbo, but it is the truth. We can introduce this and that with next Steemit hardfork, but if we don't change from inside nothing will change.
I agree 100% yes!
This is what gamers call "pay-to-win." Steemit is a social media game where playing it well means producing great content and building relationships. You win rewards when you do that.
In come the "pay-to-win"ners, who buy the best gear(biggest votes) so they can beat all the other great players they wouldn't normally beat. In this case, it's done by jumping to the top of trending and hot lists and by attracting people with the lure of big votes which usually never come.
The one voting bot that has some proof of brain built in is smartsteem, but at this point it's not much of a difference
Yes, I can see the connection to gaming in that way. It's understandable that we do such things when money is available to be won. In gaming contests and other sports contests there are rules to attempt to mitigate these issues and bring a balance, but that doesn't really exist here.
Just realized I will stop using the trending page altogether - problem solved.
I will find content only by seeing it linked, resteemed or when I go and search Steemit for it specifically, not browsing the bot charts feed (trending page).
If trends happen organically that is amazing to witness. If trends happen artificially it's just like watching commercials, competing for space and offering zero value.
Thanks for bringing that realization out in me ;)
hehe, i rarely look there now, other than to maybe find out what the community is most focusing on.
Good thoughts about “brain vs bot”, I have been against bots from the get go. I have never used them. It seems to me it’s an unfair advantage and newbies can’t get traction because they have no coin. Never been on the trending page and do tire of seeing the usual suspects.
In other words you can’t buy loyalty, it must be earned. Just MHO.🐓
I come from the cut throat world of 'internet promotion before steemit' - which is a world where people think nothing of spending many thousands of dollars a month just to try to get seen in the google search rankings - partially because of that I can just write off the cost of bots as a type of marketing cost that is intended to generate a return and usually they do - which is part of the issue here.. The bots are often profitable even without them generating new votes.
I see the unfair advantage as being the existence of an imbalance of wallet sizes ultimately, which is true and I suppose though that the counter argument is that the wallet imbalances will exist with or without bots.
Bot would have been good only if the developers dmmaybe bring a sort of rule that will restrict users. Users with fat wallets end up using boys to always stay at the trending page while new faces never ever get there even if they promote their posts because obviously they can't get as much money as the beg guys to pump in there. It's sad
I guess they could only allow the use of bots by accounts below a certain reputation level - but ultimately the bot operators are aiming to make money!
The only way to fight against bots is to create a system where bots are not profitable. Humans are cunning animals and if there is a crack somewhere they will find a way to exploit it. Heck, this is why we're the dominant species on the planet.
As for how to control the tyranny of the powerful... well people have been discussing this since the dawn of civilization... and no final answer has been found. And I strongly suspect none will ever be.
Steem has to redefine itself. The rewards system must be changed to stop inordinately favoring those who hold the most Steem. There is a reason why in democracies (arguably the most stable political systems yet devised) each citizen's vote is worth exactly as much as any other. Imagine a political system where your voting power is directly proportional to the size of your bank account. Yes, it would pretty soon end up as an inhuman dystopia with an eternal caste of untouchable aristocracy and an army of starving slaves. Let us all mull on this.
And once we find a system where power cannot accrued simply on its own, by its own existence, the problem of bots will disappear by itself.
oh, here we go :)
The votes are worth an equal amount but in representational democracy they don't really mean anything at all because the entire systems are rigged/controlled.
Or imagine a political system where you can only be a candidate if you have a big bank account - it's much the same and it's what we have!
Direct democracy is the only valid form of democracy and we don't have it. I don't think it exists anywhere in any 'developed' nations (where 'developed' means 'farmed')..
I spend a lot of time writing about how that is basically what we have now.. but it could get worse, yes!
I think the only real reason why Steemit has had any notable success as it is designed currently is due to the open mindedness of some of the early whales, being willing and able to upvote and curate effective authors. If that fades out then something drastic will have to change to avoid it all turning into something resembling a chinese casino based social network! lol
True, our democracies are corrupt but they are still nominally democracies. The rules are quite clear - one citizen one vote. Equal rights for all etc. If there is a deviation or corruption you can always appeal to those base rules and correct the practical application of the system. There is something to appeal to.
However, here the rules themselves are different. The US constitution and voting rules do not say "a citizen's vote shall be proportional to the size of their material holdings"... while Steemit's rules say exactly that. Nothing is perfect, but creating perfect rules (or as close as you can get to them) is a good step in the right direction.
I really don't know if it is technically possible to change the rules at this late stage but if they continue on like this then you are right, it will end up as chinese casino social network.
This is very thoughtful of you @ura-soul. I hope all stemians can see the divide between "Proof of brain" and "Proof of wallet" and as well prioritize as appropriate. I'm sure Steemit was primarily to reward "Brain value". Thank you
You are welcome, thanks!