And I totally get where you're coming from. I personally believe one of the biggest mistakes was offering/marketing this platform to anyone to create content and earn, without bringing money in the door. Content is a product. Consumers pay attention to and buy that product. That's why I bring up those consumers. That role is neglected here. I personally believe the content should be bringing money in the door not just sending it potentially out. So I say voting is a form of tips. I point out how that brings new money into the ecosystem, all while the consumer technically isn't spending money. So I say it's a good deal, because it is. All I'm doing is flipping over the 'traditional' business model here, trying to show how it makes money, rather than being an expense.
Downvotes would be needed to combat all that other nonsense that has nothing to do with genuine content and real consumers. People do spend money on content these days. From nearly my first day here I couldn't understand why this 'business model' hands out money to content and personalities that do nothing to attract actual people. There's far more potential in attracting paying consumers. 'Consumer rewards' rather than 'curation rewards' for instance. I've asked my kids, "Do you know what a curator is?" No, they don't. But they don't have a problem grasping consumer rewards. Some rebranding here would go a long way.
From a writer/artist/entertainer perspective with a good business mind, I can say that original vision from years ago highlights the fact they didn't even know what they were building. In the past I've described it as a knife, and people are confused, wondering why they can't cut their food. I see the same tool but if you turn it over and use the sharp side, it's much easier to succeed.