It has the potential to lead to better distribution, especially if we revert the curve or even invert it. It certainly works at least a little. There are plenty of authors who can't afford to buy in who nonetheless power up. So far it's not led to wide distribution, but there's a pathway. If we eliminate Steem rewards, we'll always be stuck with the distribution we have now. Gotta think long term, is there a path? I argue, prior to EIP, we were on a path forward, even though there were abuses along the way. The tools EIP provided gave more power to those who had it already. Now, in the hands of benevolent whales these can be used well, but it leaves us a fragile ecosystem, hoping changes that benefit them will benefit us all. I think the new curve is an obvious example of a rule change whose negative side effects are only hearsay for those who advocated for it. They know it's "worrisome" but though they see its impact, they don't feel personally or in their immediate circles and so don't get quite how powerfully it's negatively impacting a lot of good people.
A more widely, evenly distributed voting token would benefit us all. I don't think that's on the smt roadmap.
Posted using Partiko Android
Sorry, but your impression is wrong. Before the EIP the earning potential with SP was even higher than now.
The changes in the EIP did benefit all. It lowered earning potential over the whole board, leading to a better distribution of the pool. But it still doesn't forcibly expropriate holders. Which is good, that should not be a target, or holding wouldn't be desirable.
Wide distribution of the voting token is not valuable in itself. People who "can't afford" to put some money in and want all the tokens for free do not help the ecosystem at all. Sooner or later they sell, creating only downwards pressure. Faucets are good, but with too much given away through those there's no reason to buy any more. Long term that doesn't work.
Besides, authors who earn SMT will still be able to exchange them for STEEM to power up.