Source

It is good to see communities develop on Blurt. We have many nationalities sharing this space, and it is right and proper that they should create an environment where they can post and share in their own language.

What is not right and proper is that any such community feels it has the right to disrupt the platform and make threats against the people who are giving them that space. There is no assumption that every member of such a community is involved in such attempted hijacking, but everyone must be made aware of the aims and backgrounds of the ringleaders of this group.

The attempt to hijack Blurt is being orchestrated by a small number of accounts. It does not really matter how many humans are behind this - collusion means we can take them as one organism with one shared aim.

Accounts such as @ctime, @mariuszkarowski, and @mmmmkkkk311 are trying so very hard to endear themselves to a user base that seems to believe everything without ever double-checking. Who are these accounts? What is their history? Have Blurt users ever bothered to check the behaviour of these accounts on Steem and Hive?

Here, have a good hard look.

MK was a bid bot owner on Steem. For those of you who were not there, bid bots were a scheme whereby one could buy votes directly without any delegation. The schemes turned liquid STEEM into upvotes that were then paid out as SP and SBD. One could easily then accumulate more STEEM and buy more upvotes.

Because of the economics of Steem, this was a win-win for both the vote buyers and the bid bot owners, the vote sellers. The buyers did have to be careful not to overpay, but the bid bot owners were milking it. The term "raping the reward pool" became a common trope against the rampant use of these services.

@rycharde wrote about this at the time and was one of the few people to figure out that the bid bots themselves were not entirely to blame - it was the very nature of the economic model that made such services profitable! The bid bots were the logical consequence of the economic model - it was, in his opinion, the model that needed to be changed to make such services uneconomic. This did, eventually, happen although the change created new issues.

So, up to this point, MK is just your average profiteer, using the platform to maximise returns. Nothing wrong with that. But what happens next is more revealing, in that MK's ruthlessness in acquiring wealth extends to damaging other people as a methodology. He is not content to profit from the economy, he feels justified in ruining other users if that will gain him a few extra cents. This is pathological behaviour.

Now, Steem's HF21 changed the economic model radically. There are many articles on the precise effects, but one immediate effect was that bid bots became unprofitable. However, HF21 was designed to keep the whales in clover and keep their earnings high even without their bid bot incomes. The problem for the average users, was that not only were their rewards reduced, but they also were at the mercy of a newly created class of "free downvotes" that became used as strategic tools to further increase the reward pool for whale earnings.

HF21 was activated In September 2019. The bid bot vote buying party was over. And in December 2019, we find the hypocrite MK post that Don't buy votes for yourself or others. Thank you.. Why the sudden change in attitude? Vote buying was good; vote selling was even better for the likes of MK, and many other users.

MK then started a campaign against SBI, its members, and especially the owner. Read the few posts from that time and especially the comments. Exactly the same false arguments as used on Blurt. That the owner was a scammer and stealing profits from the reward pool - this from a bid bot owner who thought draining the reward pool for himself was perfectly legitimate. This is exactly what chronic liars do: they point the finger of blame at others and rant loudly for things that they themselves are doing!

MK has no scruples and no morals - he is purely guided by his financial returns. If this means screwing other people, even perfectly innocent users, then that's fine by him. They should all learn to obey his rules because his greed comes first. Do read the hundreds of comments that express the disgust users felt about this behaviour. In the mind of MK, it is perfectly fine to promote vote-buying when it is profitable for him and to then run a hypocritical campaign against vote-buying when it is no longer profitable for him.

Proof is here. Please read the whole thread, and especially this revealing comment. The admission that he owned a bid bot because it was hugely profitable. Also, an admission that his change of tactics was purely to protect his investment.

Again, for those reading this who were not on Steem at the time, the new reward curve moved steeply upwards so that large votes were worth proportionately more than smaller votes. This was thought to be an ingenious return to what used to be a parabolic curve, without being as steep. Also, each user had some "free" downvotes that did not drain their upvoting power. So the stage was set for whales to use both upvotes and downvotes as strategic votes, irrespective of who the victims were or whether they actually did anything wrong. The sum of all those free downvotes had the effect of increasing slightly the reward pool so that those inflated upvotes were worth even more!

This is the reason MK switched from being Mr Bidbot to Mr Downvote - purely and simply his perception that screwing other people would help him earn more money. This is not only evil but also deeply pathetic as the results of his actions alone would have made a very tiny difference to his own rewards. Such minuscule positives for him were worth wiping out the post rewards of many small accounts.

And it was almost always the little people because it would have been dangerous to enter a downvote war with any number of whales - that would not have been good for the MK business. Notice he very rarely posts, precisely to avoid getting flagged by others in retaliation to his own.

This is not a mere digression, but a reminder of why Blurt was designed differently; with a different reward curve and no downvotes. MK has zero power to downvote and therefore has to resort to his other tactics of malicious lies and accusations, backed up by his munificent upvotes to the impressionable users.

We haven't even touched on his activities on Hive. Before that, after a long campaign against SBI on Steem he suddenly stopped. Here is an interesting comment: "Please remove free downvotes, I want to turn on my bid bot and get back to vote selling business.." Wonder what prompted yet another change of tactics!? We shall let the reader figure that out. It was surely said in irony, but it actually holds a lot of truth, in that his profits in the New Steem would have been much lower, but still good enough to still operate there.

On 20 March 2020, Hive forked from Steem and retained the same economic model, so that MK still perceived of his free downvotes as a few extra cents to his great wealth. We see in this June 2020 post that all MK accounts continued to downvote SBI members. Please read the long comments again to get a good idea of the kind of person MK is. One comment by the @ctime MK alt is illustrative:"I'm sorry. I will not unfollow mmmkkkk's dv trail, unless I hear some voices from few other whales and community leaders."

So, the bullying of a program, the lies against the founder, and the destruction of innocent users' rewards would only stop if some larger accounts tell him to stop. Eventually, they did! More proof that the way to deal with a bully is to bully back - to make it no longer worth his while.

It's all about the money, but more than that, it is about abusive tactics to achieve whatever he can get away with. This long article demonstrates that he is willing to employ whatever tactics it takes to achieve his ambitions - unless stopped. Hiding beneath a veneer of legitimate voting behaviour is a rapacious investor who will screw you for his own gain.

As for the current situation, the tactics and smears are the same as used against the SBI program on both Steem and Hive. The important difference is that Blurt is a whole blockchain ecosystem, therefore the propaganda has to be more aggressive - the prize is larger. SBI had no token to manipulate and crash, and the program was saved by some supportive whales.

The threats from MK of powering down to crash the price are mere tactics to then buy even more BLURT at even lower prices - BLURT sold by the naive and scared users who believe his propaganda at face value. These are clear threats to the security of the chain. Think about it, why would anybody threaten to crash the price of coins just recently bought? What would that do to his profits? His demands that the foundation stops voting for witnesses is both insulting and proof of the ultimate plan to hijack the whole chain, this post shows a tally of MK's personal and community voting power, why keep a tally if you don't intend to use it for an agenda?

This is all sociopathic behaviour, is this what Blurt users really want?