My Response
I wrote the first review on Moonbot's services and it was generally a positive one. Then I came across a differing view by 
(This comic is a reminder)
Source
First and foremost, it is a good strategy to incorporate mathematical calculation as the basis for justification. It lends credibility. Let me try to deal with the issues categorically.
As first, posting ten (10) posts per day would surely (sooner or later) drive away many of our current followers and regular upvoters, and especially those who put us on any of available auto-voters.
I am perhaps ignorant as to where the idea of 4 posts a day came from but each community have their absolute right to set the perimeters of their member's participation. If there is an express rule that a member cannot create contents of more than 4 posts to prevent the draining of the voting pool that is a fair imposition.
However, there seems a very presumptuous statement to make that an increase in posting equals to spamming. There is a general flaw in taking this view because, there is no correlation between the quantity of post and quality of post. Unless of course the author is faced by the constraint of time where in the past 1 hour was used to prepare a single post and now, the same amount of time is used to generate more than 4 posts. That that is trying to speculate too far into the author's prerogative of his own time management.
Say, that assumption is true. The inevitable will happen, the author will lose the support of its regular followers which is a general consequence of bad content or spamming. Hence, the natural thing would take place, the author has one of two choices, continue the number of posts but improve on content or secondly to reduce the number of posts and improve on content. The unchanging criteria in both scenarios is the quality of content.
If the follower decides to engage in an autovoting service, again that cannot be a ground to justify why the author cannot subscribe to
In other words, there is a good reason why we are advised to keep the number of our post at maximum four (4) of them per day!
I maybe ignorant to this common rule of etiquette but it would be lovely to know how common this rule has spread among the community. I think one of the best thing about an open economy is to adopt whatever strategy that best works for you as long as it doesn't flout the rules and regulations. If it is undesirable, the author is punished by the diminishing support of its followers, so there is a natural check and balance.
Going through its outgoing votes can be clearly seen that the bot by default casts only 10% votes of its VP (to those that feed it) what at the moment when I'm typing this and when its VP is 85.30% means that its regularly casted 10% vote at the moment worths $0.037
This is the first fallacy of the entire review. The review has conveniently left of the fact that
In other words, I need not go further or provide other mathematical justification because the rest of the calculation are based on the presumption that a subscriber is only able to obtain $0.03 cents for each post.
The best possible scenario
In case the bot wouldn't go below 80% of its Voting Power to retain its daily reproducibility and have in mind other members who are using the bot too, let's say its Voting Power would fluctuate during the day in between 80% and 90%.
where at 90% VP its 100% vote worth $0.39 (and default 10% worth $0.039)
while at 80% VP its 100% vote worth $0.35 (and default 10% worth $0.035)
what is an average of $0.37 for 100% vote and $0.037 for default 10% vote
10 posts x $0.037 = $0.37 (per day)
30 days x $0.37 (per day) = $11.10 (per month)
The above is the calculation used by
To prove my point, I take one subscriber's account that has benefited from the upvotes and let's validate my contention:
The author 
Lets stretch our imagination to the worst possible scenario. Let's just consider that
I believe the rest of the replies by 
Merry Christmas Everyone...
