Locking capital away is doing something. People get paid to lock up capital or they won't lock it up. The "game" can still be played, more profitably then simply locking your funds up for passive interest.
The idea here is, large investors may not want to be forced to play the game. However, they maybe willing to lock up funds to passive income, which helps the Hive ecosystem and price by reducing circulating supply. The goal here is to give those that play the game well an opp to gain more vs those that sit back passively. However, curation is always a risk and you may earn LESS than the ones earning passive.
But I am in agreement with those anti universal reward pool in that we shouldn't force investors to play the game or get diluted. I simply want to find a way to appease both sides, which I believe there is a middle ground we can use here.
The reason dilution in a governance token is so important as you not only lose out via inflation, but that also means you get diluted of your influence on the platform. This is key, gov tokens are no joke, that is the backbone security of our system. Someone like myself takes governance very seriously and is the reason I purchased and powered up as much as I have, is so I can help protect the network. Dilution is a real issue and investors should not be put in weird spots where they may get diluted.