@therealwolf your bot?

You'd think a top 20 witness could be a little more helpful to Steem than recruiting perhaps 15 million sp and promising them higher than curation returns in exchange for selling their votes indifferently and completely undermining the content discovery system of our platform while taking a slice of the action?

You'd think a top 20 witness who fully understood the EIP, instead of pivoting his vote selling business into say a curation profit splitting business that's good for the entire ecosystem, wouldn't just double down on the direct vote selling part of his scheme thinking it'd be more downvote resistant.

I've seen the things you say and I know you're a little more aware than most, wolf. Others may be playing dumb or are dumb, but you understand what you're doing perfectly well.

You understand perfectly well that vote selling is just a laundering service for self voting. Self voting exclusively takes 100% of the value of a stakeholders own votes and returns it to him. Vote selling that's 100% of the value of a stakeholders votes and distributes it between the stakeholder, laundering service provider and vote buyer, the latter two even less deserving than the first.

You understand perfectly well that 'don't downvote good content being bid botted up' is completely misleading. Follow the money - if vote sellers can get 90% returns, what does that make the rest of the stakeholders curating honestly and only getting 50%? Suckers? Morons? Then over time you'll see a steady decrease in honest curators and an increase in vote sellers. The inevitable lack of honest curation means a downward motivation to create good content and therefore an inevitable wholesale decline in actual good content. Many don't see it, but of course you understand this.

You're not the only vote selling service provider in the top 20, but I'm starting to suspect you're a little more pernicious than most of the others. You understand all this and just let others disseminate misinformation so you quietly profit, right? I mean why not just let smaller bid bot owners like @themarkymark get involved in all the drama, focusing people's resentment on self voters like @trafalgar and @kevinwong when we've spent the last year and a half trying correct a broken economic system that doesn't punish honest voting so a working platform is even possible? Sure, just let him tank all the lightning bolts if he's drawn to drama, why get involved yourself?

And why did it take us over a year and a half to get a first attempt of a remotely sound economic reform package across the line? And we had to go around the witnesses to Inc directly to get it done. Do you want me to believe that the bid bot owning top 20 witnesses who were probably the only group likely to lose out on a functioning platform weren't any impediment there? I'm starting to think you live up to your name wolf.

This isn't just about this post. This post is just worth like $115 at the time of writing. It's just a single post. It's about what you represent. Would it be misleading to say that a vote for you is a vote for 15 million SP worth of vote laundering serving to undermine the platform people like myself invested in? Because last I checked @haejin is only self voting for 2.2m with his own stake and he's not rewarded a top 20 witness position for it.

How long do you think it's going to take before stakeholders like @theycallmedan are just fed up with wasting their time shutting down garbage you facilitate all over the chain that undermines his investment entirely? Do you think your sycophancy would hold you up forever? Last I checked you're just a couple of million SP away from being out of the top 20.

How long do you think it'll take for someone to convince Steemit Inc. that perhaps abstaining from witness voting and surrendering dictatorial power over the composition of top 20 witnesses to an anonymous 3rd party isn't really doing anyone any favors?

Tell me, if you were any other investor would you vote for yourself? Where do we go from here @therealwolf?

EDIT: I have since learned that wolf likely had been a relatively long term supporter of economic reform and my strongly implied accusation was made erroneously. I apologize for that, but do stand by the rest of the points, particularly centered around the incompatibility of the economics of vote selling with honest curation.