Why would people play a game where 20 accounts dominate 50% of the rewards intended to draw in newbs, not further enrich those that already have too much?
It's like hive failing is the goal.
It is working.
Who buys into a game that requires 1.9m usd invested to get to be a peer?
Assuming that that level of buying wouldn't push the price.
I've long advocated a 1000mv(36 accounts) voluntary cap on voting from the pool.
This would only require a 190k usd investment to be a peer in the pool.
Why would anybody invest 190k usd only to be diluted by folks with 10x(5 accounts) that amount?
This is not winning game economics, imo.
As long as the top 5 curators continue to vote rewards to those that dump, we can expect rewards to continue to be dumped.
As long as the top 5 curators continue to take 10x what anybody else gets, we can expect newbs to drop out because they get next to nothing.
Who plays a game that will never offer a level playing field in this lifetime?
Who buys into a game where some people take out 1000x the rewards everybody else gets for playing the same no talent, no luck game?
Let alone 10000x.
This is our reputation in the broader cryptosphere because it is true.
Everybody wants change, nobody wants to change.