That's true, and less emotionally triggering, voting burn.funder would serve the same ends.
I propose the change to the curation math should be made in pursuit of a more horizontal distribution of the rewards, the top posts are getting enough, imo.
My reading of arcange's posts says that the largest accounts are maintaining their share of the inflation as a percentage of the whole, thereby not reducing the centralization caused by early adoption and brownnosing of the ninjaminers by milquetoast authors.
I think burning flagged rewards presents a better proposal for the newbs, too.
Rather than allow characterizing the flaggots as enriching themselves, it ends any thoughts in that line and increases the scarcity of all coins, equally.
Maybe it gets folks to flag more stuff by demonstrating the benefits to all, rather than the few at the top.
The crab bucket is failing the trending page, and the distribution, imo.
At some point the rubicon is crossed, future inflation won't be enough to unseat the oligarchy created by the designed control features that favor the top earners, has that point been reached, already?
Like I said, I don't hate it but I prefer the way it works now. When we downvote overpaid stuff in the top 100 (which is nearly if not 100% of what I downvote, and I suspect a large portion of total downotes), it is increasing the rewards all the way down the line, even comments.