The problem with Steem's voting reward algorithm is not that 20% get 80% of the rewards, but it is that the selection of the 20% is done by 1%.
With 50% of the daily-active stake controlled by 1-2%, no matter what algorithm you use, the 1-2% is going to run the show. Nothing can really change until the stake is spread out.
Agreed.
Thanks for raising the point of clarification because no one can read my mind. In my mind I was thinking of selection algorithm in a more general sense of for example not allowing whales to vote (which I posited in this blog would be game theoretically vulnerable to attack) or not even using voting to select rewards. I haven't yet proposed any concrete ideas for a better algorithm for selecting rewards.
Note I am positing in this blog that spreading the stake out will be vulnerable to attack by collusion of voters.
@Anonymint, did you say only the top 1% decides who can be in the top 20% in Steem, to be the top whales? Are you saying that will always be the case? I was thinking that some people can become whales if they are popular enough to get upvotes each day by thousands or maybe someday by millions of people each day over the course of maybe many years and not just upvotes by bots.
Like I have been saying in previous comments, I want to believe that some people can slowly get into the top 20 percent. Are you saying that the top 1 percent will downvote potential whales if the top one percent decided to do so or something? And if the top one percent has that kind of power, then the question is whether or not the top one percent should have that much power over what might be basically their own FrankenSteem Creation, right?
Mathematically it would require dissension at the top and unanimity at the bottom w.r.t. to upvoting, which seems highly implausible.
Thanks for the response. Interesting. Upvoted.