No, that one is ok, I refer to the delegation of sp voting power, we have seen what happens when the whale influence is allowed to run wild, they suck all the rewards to the top and the 99% starve.
This is what that experiment has been about.
Apparently somebody with influence at the top pushed a work around through.
It's good crapitalism, but bad for brand loyalty, imo.
There are a couple reasons:
Reducing account creation cost by requiring a delegation of SP alongside account creation. This allows us to make millions of accounts without spending millions of dollars, which is super important.
SP delegation allows @steemit (which currently holds a huge amount of the platform's stake) to delegate SP to a broad swath of the userbase (as a part of an achievements system, for example, driving retention and re-engagement), reducing the relative influence of a few dozen large holders of SP by creating a sort of SP "middle class" (via delegation to active, engaged users).
For a quick off-the-cuff example (all details subject to change, this is just a quick hypothetical), imagine an achievement called "On That Grind" that is given to a user who makes one original post per week that yields >$10 in rewards, for four weeks straight. A set of such users would be a great group to bestow stake delegations on, as they are contributing meaningfully to the platform and everyone would benefit from giving them increased curation influence.