I also agree that communities or some type of organization of content is vital for it to be seen, as currently it’s very hard to find what you are looking for. I’d also like to see an incentive for creators like yourself to build an audience .. that would be the goal imo.
I am a polymath and relatively a bit anti-social. I think that a lot of excellent creators are somewhat anti-social, as they are possessed by a genie who drives them to constantly create. They have less energy than other people to socialize.
If the system is designed for creators to build an audience, it will be generally the mediocre-good "bubbly" content creators who rise to the top, excluding the anti-social outliers/cream of the crop.
I was very fortunate when I first started Steem, due to being seen by curators who upvoted, and resteemed me, giving visibility for others to see my works.
I have put on a lot of theatre performances for example, and I always use a different production company name, and never try to create a following, so the audience won't know what to expect, and will be blown away by the performance (letting the performance speak for itself). It isn't in my nature to build followings, and I don't think I can be incentivized to go against my own nature. And I believe this to be the same for a lot of creators who fail to get recognized on HIVE, and on Steem. It just isn't in them to bring people to their content, when they are chiefly or solely driven about producing content. To make it about building an audience would kill the flourishing of art.
The majority of people who use the internet are "downloaders". They consume content. With a minority being uploaders. They produce content.
It makes more sense to target the "downloaders"/consumers of information/content, and bring them to the content creators. I think this can be achieved through better use of communities, curation, and possibly some sort of recommendations, like youtube does. I generally don't search for things on youtube, and find them through recommendations.
They (downloaders) are more important to the success of a social media platform, so, yes, they should be where the members of the community who want to drive success here aim most of their resources.
That said, a fairer reward system for content creators than currently exists would almost certainly have a massive positive effect, too. And the fairest reward system that I can conceptualize is one that pays out to the content creators 1 to 1 to the collective amount of time that the content consumers spend consuming their content.
Attention is the most valuable currency within the human species, but that isn't currently reflected in the voting rules, neither here (on Hive), nor on any other social media platform (that I'm aware of). I do believe that YouTube includes "average viewing time" in their algorithm for recommended feeds, which indirectly rewards attracting a lot of collective time spent consuming one's content (more people being directed to the content that will likely lead to more ad views, subscriptions and future viewers), but I'm convinced that directly rewarding time spent is a more accurate and objective measure of how valuable one's content is (perceived to be by the collective).