The entire reason that people have a problem with bid-bots is because they don't understand basic business/economics/marketing principles. These idiotic crybabies see other people making $200+ per post while they're getting $0.03 and rather than admit to themselves that they need to work on their content or their marketing skills they would rather blame the system that they cannot participate in because of their own lack of skills or funds.
If you're complaining that bid-bots make things unfair because the stake weighted system favors those who already hold stake then you fail to realize that without bid-bots the system favors those who already hold stake even more. Anyone who has been here long enough will attest to this, sadly what they say gets thrown out the window because anyone who has been here that long is seen as an evil whale.
Before bid-bots, only those who already had the attention of other whales, or were whales themselves ever hit trending. Now we have a system that allows minnows and dolphins a way to buy their way to the top of trending and join the ranks of the whales and dolphins. Sure it favors those who have money, but thats is just a fact of life that you poor people are going to have to deal with. Feel free to stick your head in the fucking ground and pretend that when correctly spent money doesn't make progressing through nearly every facet of life much easier.
______endrant______
Sorry to be so accusative but I'm sick and tired of this global sentiment that is anti success. While it sounds like a good idea equality of outcome has never produced sustainable progress if any at all. What does though is equality of opportunity, and while the current system may have its flaws removing bid bots will not serve to make this better, as it will only serve to remove one of the greatest opportunities for poor steemians to become rich.
Above is an argument for bidbots. Below is my rebuttal of this argument, which is aimed primarily at bidbot users who hold a similar position or justification for using them.
The entire reason that people have a problem with bid-bots is because they don't understand basic business/economics/marketing principles.
In each of these regards, a basic principle is a matter of opinion. And as such, from source to source, school to school, or employer to employer, they will very often teach very different "basic principles." One does not need to educate their self on someone else's interpretation of an invented branch of study in order to know if selling votes ought to be acceptable. They need only ask their selves if they have ever heard of the buying or selling of votes being acceptable in any other context. And of course they will not have, because all of us already know that buying or selling votes is unacceptable. We've just been distracted from what we know by what we want to believe.
These idiotic crybabies see other people making $200+ per post while they're getting $0.03 and rather than admit to themselves that they need to work on their content or their marketing skills they would rather blame the system that they cannot participate in because of their own lack of skills or funds.
It is worth mentioning that this "cry baby," "complainer" label that has been attributed to those who are against bidbots is being used in a manner similar to how the phrase conspiracy theorist is used to detract from the words spoken by whistleblowers or truth-tellers. It was started by the abusers and their closest sycophants at first, but now everyone is just copying, not realising what they are doing. It is often a label thrown around in the midst of a complaint or a rant like this one, making the complaint of people complaining rather amusing. But the point here is that, we need to stop accusing people of complaining until we have adequately investigated their complaint and came to the conclusion it is not worth complaining about. Especially when said complaints are made in our own interests.
If you're complaining that bid-bots make things unfair because the stake weighted system favors those who already hold stake then you fail to realize that without bid-bots the system favors those who already hold stake even more.
And yet before bidbots were here, the most influential stake-holders were having to vote for, or have others vote for them, on content in order to acquire their curation rewards. That was the entire design of the system and how we were supposed to avoid shit like vote-selling. And yet the vote-sellers are still receiving the curation rewards that were put in place to encourage fair voting on quality content and community building. Two things that vote-selling does the complete opposite of incentivizing.
Anyone who has been here long enough will attest to this, sadly what they say gets thrown out the window because anyone who has been here that long is seen as an evil whale.
I have been here that long and I do not attest to it. large stake holders were incenitivized to vote for quality content in order maximize curation rewards. If one could delegate without surrendering curation rewards, then this is likely what would still be happening. The whales would delegate out to the best curators and initiatives that sought to reward great content, making their profits and providing the votes that ensure as many deserving creators as possible also get theirs. But now the whales have an incentive not to vote on any content unless someone pays them to, and so there is practically no organic whale voting going on anymore, and thus an environment is being created where one cannot earn anything at all unless they are willing to pay for their upvote. We're not there yet, but with every purchased bidbot we get closer to that end.
Before bid-bots, only those who already had the attention of other whales, or were whales themselves ever hit trending.
This is again untrue. I was very outspoken against whales and curation trails who were abusing the system, and thus I sacrificed half if not more of the potential rewards out there pretty early on in my time here. And yet, even while having many whales and curation trails who would avoid upvoting any of my content like the plague, I did manage to have a trending post three times before bidbots came around. It was possible to get a trending post because people were actively looking to vote on good content in order to get curation rewards, so an excellent post had every chance of getting upvotes, as long as people seen it.
Even with a ton of abuse there was the ability to earn for content creators who did not want to succumb to playing the self-promotion game. Now the self-promotion game is all that exists, and so it no longer a reward economy but a selfish one. I would much rather see it return to being about giving, and not seeing how much we can take before there's none left for anyone else.
Now we have a system that allows minnows and dolphins a way to buy their way to the top of trending and join the ranks of the whales and dolphins.
Before vote-selling we had a system where whales and dolphins would frequently go to the introduceyourself tag and welcome new users with large upvotes. We had countless initiatives which a great deal of power searching for the best content creators and rewarding them. In other words, minus a few bed eggs, we had a community that was about looking out for one another.
Yes a minnow can buy their self onto the trending page now, but as 
Sure it favors those who have money, but thats is just a fact of life that you poor people are going to have to deal with.
This sentence implies that the author is under the impression that all who are against bidbots are poor. This is completely false and should not be believed. There are dolphins and whales who are against bidbots. Furthermore, bidbots do not favour those with money. The problem here is that too many conflate profits with an increase in influence. Many are making profits. But only a small few are gaining influence, and they are doing that amidst what is supposed to be a fair distribution of STEEM across the network.
Feel free to stick your head in the fucking ground and pretend that when correctly spent money doesn't make progressing through nearly every facet of life much easier.
Here lies the whole crux of the argument in my opinion. The bidbot argument is fundamentally an argument between community and individual prosperity. What is more important? Having the opportunity to earn at the expense of all others in the community, or having the opportunity to earn without impacting the welfare of the rest of the community? For me it will always be more important to provide the second option, even if it is difficult. And this second option is what has been stolen from this community. We are now forced to betray one another for our bread, or to starve, and that's simply not a community.
Sorry to be so accusative but I'm sick and tired of this global sentiment that is anti success.
One can measure success in many different ways. Currently, writing a few meaningless words and then paying someone money to tell you they like it amounts to success. It did not used to be this way, however, and it will not continue to be for much longer.
What does though is equality of opportunity, and while the current system may have its flaws removing bid bots will not serve to make this better, as it will only serve to remove one of the greatest opportunities for poor steemians to become rich.
Bidbots do not offer poor people an opportunity to get rich. They offer poor people a chance make small profits through paying for their votes. This is a lie being used to encourage people to use the bots, but there is just as much chance for a poor person to end up losing money on their bidbot purchases, which is why this argument is entirely irresponsible.
If you are reading from off-Steemit and want to make my life a little easier by supporting my work, you can donate a little BTC here; 1G9of7ha1zazxSp2s9fCbfVDPHccPqmc61
