RE: Thoughts on the “Bounty Hunter” Debate in Steemit
Greetings @roadofrich
I find your assessment valid. I think the important thing is to identify them and let them know that we are monitoring the abuses being committed. This way, we seek to raise awareness among the abusers, so they can try to act appropriately.
Now, if the problem persists, there is no further reason to continue supporting these users.
The important thing we must keep in mind as curators is that votes are not mandatory or guaranteed for any user or post. Whether or not to grant a vote, and the percentage of that vote, is always under the discretion of the curation team.
On Hari Raid, I have encountered several abusers, and they have also been called to account.
The term "witch hunter" isn't correct when it comes to clear situations. Although this may be tiring, we must always ensure the sustainability of the reward system; otherwise, it won't be just one, but 10, 20, 30 users doing the same thing.
I wish you success.
I'm not arguing that these bounty hunters should be completely eliminated. While they should be removed if they significantly impact the service, I believe there's a win-win structure within the appropriate boundaries.
I believe that Steemit's current bounty hunters could benefit if they were allowed to participate more deeply in the ecosystem and operate within appropriate boundaries.
I understand your point of view, and to a certain extent, I agree with it. However, sometimes they get greedy and abuse things.
For example, with new users, we've seen multiple accounts created by the same person to take advantage of the support they received for achieving milestones in the newcomer community, since at the time, the SC03 account was guaranteed one vote. The accounts then became empty.
Typically, these accounts don't generate meaningful engagement, share subpar content, don't support other content, and don't add Steem Power to their wallets. In short, they contribute nothing useful to the platform.
0.00 SBD,
0.02 STEEM,
0.02 SP
Yes, I agree with your opinion. However, due to the nature of the STEEM blockchain, it is practically impossible to completely block abuse. Analyzing every user’s transactions one by one to determine whether they are abusive is simply not realistic.
The key point I want to emphasize is that, whether they are bounty hunters or regular users, what really matters is generating meaningful transactions and data from Steemit. This is the foundation for attracting marketing opportunities from external companies, which in turn can create positive momentum for the entire ecosystem.
As you mentioned, under the current structure, abusers provide no real benefit to Steemit. It is simply a cycle of curators → reward distribution, with some users exploiting multiple accounts to extract rewards.
But if marketing from external companies were introduced, the situation could change. For example:
Marketing costs → Burn
Curators → Profit distribution
With such a structure, the ecosystem could be managed in a very different and more sustainable way.
It would be good if you included in your curation guide that users should share posts about Crypto Hunted on the networks they manage, as a promotional strategy.
If Steemit wants to attract advertising from Web3 projects, several key conditions must be met:
A sufficient number of active users
The production of high-quality content
Clear and tangible promotional impact
Data that demonstrates real service participation
These elements can certainly be achieved through Steemit.
However, the important point is that if the platform continues to rely solely on the current curation system—where there is little networking among users and most activity consists only of repetitive “mining-style” posting for rewards—then achieving these goals will be impossible.
Hypocrite.
You're as responsible, if not more so (because you're a witness) than everybody else.
This when you were in the Top 20:
0.00 SBD,
0.00 STEEM,
1.55 SP