100,000 to 1 person without much of a consistent track record on Steemit
-or-
or 1,000 to 100 people with consistency, actively being part of Steemit
"Celebrities" have plenty of opportunities outside. I'd personally agree with getting "celebs" with understanding and appreciation of blockchain technnology ( @dollarvigilante is a great choice)... but other than that, for the network to grow, smaller cuts distributed amongst dedicated Steemers is a much preferable strategy (which is happening now as well! - a good thing).
This thing called "social influencers" are already a dead concept in the blogging space (I know because Malaysia was really big on bloggers, which re-branded themselves as social influencers.. which in the end amounts to nothing but just a way to collect the attention of -gawkers-, not -doers-). Plus, dedicated Steemers can at least guide other users in the process, albeit with lesser reach than someone with star power.
We need originality and not just passive influencers, but active and dedicated -participants- with skin-in-the-game to make things happen within (and outside) the network itself. #justsaying
PS: I personally agree with the sentiment of this post, but probably not the "witch-hunt", the votes were their decision anyway, although bringing this to light may help in some ways, especially making informed decisions.
Great points. I think the people doing this sort of thing are trying to help but it can backfire as it encourages just the sort of game playing that @noganoo is pointing out and dose not reward those active participants who have stuck with it and helped to build the community.
Ultimately these issues will resolve themselves or Steemit will lose it's place to a competitor which does it better.
That's the beauty of the free market.
Well said, and good point @thecryptofiend.