"I don't think it makes sense that less than 100 accounts(large stakeholders) will be able to support healthy curation for this entire community..."
This is the factual situation. Simply comparing the media post payout and average post payout reveals this. The median payout last I checked (@arcange publishes these stats daily) was .01 SBD. The average payout was ~15 times that. What this reveals is that whales extract ~15 times the rewards of creators. This is not curation at all, but profiteering. Profiteers extract the value the users provide the Steem community and deliver that value to their wallets, increasing their stake. This prevents the business of Steem from delivering that value to the investment vehicle, Steem, in the form of increased Steem price. This prevents capital gains.
Since prehistory, investors have been able to increase their capital by increasing the value of investment vehicles. Since the advent of stocks, stock prices have provided investors capital gains when stocks have increased in value. Since Steem is the investment vehicle, rising Steem price is the mechanism that would enable investors to attain capital gains. Profiteering directly prevents Steem price from rising, and experienced investors are discouraged from buying Steem because the best mechanism of increasing their capital is not possible. Substantial stakeholders of non-Steem assets are experienced at investing for capital gains, and there is no good reason for them to be interested in becoming serial self-voters or bidbot funders to profiteer from Steem rewards, as is the essential mechanism producing ROI on Steem due to the extant code encouraging profiteering from rewards. Steem wasn't coded by experienced investors, but by clever devs, and that inexperience has induced the discouragement of capital gains.
Profiteering is not a new development. In stock corporations, hostile takeovers of corporations has long been undertaken by profiteers that then profit from the sale of the assets of the corporations. Such tactics can be profitable, but do not create rising prices of the underlying investment vehicles, stocks. In fact, profiteering eliminates the value of the underlying investment vehicle and that value is extracted into the wallets of the stockholders - just as Steem encourages. In fact, it is surprising to me that Steem has not been completely stripped of value already.
Steem is one of the best tokens and blockchains in existence today, and social media has proven over the last decade to be the most profitable business model in the world, as the FAANGs demonstrate. I think that, coupled with the difference between extracting the value from producing content (which does not depend on presses, forges, or other machinery that can be sold, but is created by individuals that cannot be sold for profit) and selling company assets, is why Steem still has any value today. Steem whales lose the ability to manipulate rewards if they sell their entire stake, and thus retain nominal stake to enable their profiteering. Regardless of the persistence of Steem due to these details, the profiteering mechanism excludes capital gains as a mechanism of rewarding investment, and this excludes experienced investors that are uninterested in becoming serial self-voters.
There is a simple mechanism that can end the profiteering and enable capital gains, and that is to limit the rewards that can be extracted from content. If a whale can cast an upvote that earns 100 Steem that return is able to provide nominal incentive for the work required to self-vote, or delegate to a bidbot for a substantial percentage of that reward (in exchange for not having to do any more work to gain that return, similar to how the owner of a rental property will pay a property management firm a percentage of the rental receipts in exchange for managing the property). If the maximum rewards potential from a post is limited to a fraction of that, there is no longer nominal financial reward from self-voting or bidbots. If dozens of self-votes or bidbot vote sales are necessary to attain 100 Steem, the return is no longer worth the time to gain it.
Limiting rewards to some reasonable multiple of the median payout (I have used Huey Long's 3% to 300%, but any algorithm that reduces payouts to an amount that is not economically viable for profiteers will suffice) will eliminate profiteering, and leave capital gains as the means of profiting from HODLing Steem.
While payouts will be limited in Steem rewards to creators, as the price of Steem rises due the value of content being delivered to the investment vehicle, the actual financial rewards content creators receive will increase as the price of Steem rises.
Investors seeking capital gains will then be able to seek them by purchasing Steem, confident that profiteers will not extract that capital, and will have incentive to seek to increase the value of Steem, to produce increased capital gains.
EIP increases the financial return able to be extracted by profiteers, and will make this problem worse. It is likely to be adopted, as the vast majority of stakeholders of Steem today are profiteers. If I am right, the price of Steem will fall after EIP. If it rises and remains higher, I will be proven wrong.
The proof is in the pudding.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
I am glad you have the inability to grasp the consequences of blatantly extorting Steemers by threatening to flag them if they deploy their stake and comments freely. The malignant impact you have on Steem is clearly and obviously apparent, as making such threats on a platform whose primary justification is free speech and censorship resistance shows.
Thanks for proving my abhorrence for you and your actions appropriate and necessary.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
I learned a lot reading this. I cannot believe they had to downvote it , that took a lot if work! This is the solution right here, limiting the upvote like you said. There is no reason for them to be flagging you! I hope someone listens!
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
Any who see this are able to consider the implications of this threat of censorship to themselves and the platform. If you have self-respect and the courage to effectively counter the self votes of this censor profiteering from censoring on Steem, I encourage you to do what is necessary to prevent censorship being profitable on Steem.
Flagging this profiteering from censorship is necessary to end the threat to the platform it is.
Please take action to eliminate the rewards self-voted by the above censor.
Thanks!
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.
As you see from the threat of downvoting any that speak freely on this platform - and that it has been carried out, and the self-voting that has enabled the censor to profit from doing so, the extant code poorly functions to oppose censorship and profiteering. EIP will make that much worse, and even avail this censor of free flags to make censorship more profitable.
Thank you for having the courage to speak freely despite being directly threatened in writing with being downvoted in reprisal for speaking your mind. Please take direct action to reduce the profit being taken by the censor by downvoting the comments they have self-voted with their horde of bots to the maximal degree possible.
It has been determined that you are trash, therefore, you have received a negative vote.
PLEASE NOTE: If you engage with the trash above you also risk receiving a negative vote on your comment.