I appreciate your reply.
However as you said "individuals in that community are given the responsibility to decide how that gift is spent."
is that a contributing factor?
is that the main contributing factor?
Surely if people didnt vote sitting in all different locations around the world he wouldnt get so much money, otherwise EVERYONE who understood the system would set up supposedly 2 accounts and do EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
And everyone would be rich (until the money ran out)
The peoples votes have to influence how much he gets, otherwise the system is totally flawed if anyone can get on and "do it themselves" without the community CAUSING his financial success...?????????????????
So, if i understand you, by voting, "the people" the community vote to say "i like that post" which gives @haejin money...? is that correct???
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What you say would be correct if all votes were equal. They are not. The value of the vote is based on the amount of steem power you have. So if you take a look at Haejin's contributions, you will see a vastly disproportionate amount of rewards coming from two individuals, Ranchrelaxo and Haejin himself.
So it is not a situation in which the COMMUNITY is causing his financial success but instead, a single individual and himself. This creates a situation in which people with a lot of wealth can simply come in and buy the pot. This exact situation was described in the Steem whitepaper.
So to answer your question, no. Your vote and hundreds of votes just like yours are not really contributing factors to this controversy. Instead, it is the votes from a single individual totaling up to $3600 daily and self-votes combined with the amounts of posts per day are the issue.