Just because I think they don't contribute to raising the value of STEEM or the quality of content on the platform, I don't use them. I don't see myself using them in the future. And I have my (unpaid) voting bot configured not to vote for any posts that have votes from them.
But... I can understand why people use them, and I think there's nothing really wrong with it. I think bid-bots are probably a form of arbitrage because the author/curation reward split is too rigid. I have thought for a long time that authors should be able to set the curation reward percentage independently on each post. If that were possible, bid-bots would serve no purpose. Like it or not, I think that as long as the curation reward split is out of balance and rigid, the bidbots are going to make sense for some authors.
I am all for the solution that promotes quality content, so trying this is mainly desperation. I have powered up all the way and I am making quality content on a professional level. But gaming the system professionally is more lucrative as it is. As I said I am not convinced that it is a good way but it is darn easy, I just tried it :)
All else being equal, I guess you'd still expect high quality authors who use bidbots to outperform low quality authors who do the same, so it probably doesn't discourage posting quality, but I do think they might drive away prospective users and thereby lower the price of STEEM.
Anyway, the way Steem has evolved, it almost seems like many authors don't really have a choice. I'm not a prolific writer anyway, so I'll keep plodding along without them, but if I were writing a lot and getting the rewards I'm seeing, I'd probably see things differently.
I am still not sure. I will probably do it when I feel greatly undervalued (which I am not by the way. I have many great contacts here that have done a lot for me). I guess the problem is only part technology (have you btw seen this proposal from @trafalgar?). A community with investors in the top will never promote quality even though quality is paramount for the investment (ie. the future of Steem), so building a middle class of hard working people on Steemit should be the main objective. Right now the rich get richer by doing things that are bad for the platform and for every second their power is increased. Steemit is just doing what we see everywhere else in the real world. I have powered up, but my yield will be lower than the ones who are richer than me. Our best hope is that they leave the platform with their winnings...
I have seen @trafalgar's proposal, but I don't have strong feelings on it. @svamiva also mentioned in a comment that golos will be having a Nov. 22 hardfork where they switch to allowing authors to set their own curation reward split on each post. I'm eager to see how that works out. Unfortunately, I don't speak Russian, so I can't try it out first hand.
The sad part is that even the rich don't get richer. The value in ranchorelaxo's wallet has dropped from 8 million to less than 1 million. Whatever haejin might be pulling out of curation rewards, I'm pretty sure he hasn't made up for that loss. Same with freedom and other people delegating to bidbots. It's something like the tragedy of the commons, I guess. Eventually, I can only hope that the low (and falling) prices will drive out the failing strategies and shift enough STEEM into the hands of people who will use their influence more wisely to attract that middle class that we need to raise its value.
Yes, grabbing for control ruins them. The let's-eat-all-the-food-on-the-island approach is stupid at best, so yes, kind of the tragedy of the commons. I have been having the same thoughts as you, that a crisis might run the investors of the grazing fields... but who knows what is going to happen.