There are several elements to the Steem ecosystem that are very unique. One example is the rewards pool. Instead of paying content creators directly with Steem, we allocate the rewards from newly created Steem. It is like a mandatory prepayment of content; it somewhat resembles a tax, which is then redistributed in the ecosystem. We decide where that payment goes, instead of a central authority. Though Steemit Inc could play that role if they wanted to, considering the amount of SP they have.
We can choose to essentially opt out by self-voting. This can be countered with downvotes. We can sell votes but the ROI and middlemen (if we delegate to bots) reduces the return to sellers compared to self-voting. In other words, there is no guaranteed method of preventing some form of redistribution of our stake.
The Steem ecosystem has elements of both capitalism and socialism. If anything, @kevinwong's proposal aligns more closely to capitalism than the existing system. As his proposal enables and supports the operating of the free market. The current system could end up in market failure, 100% self-voting and no incentive to create anything of value.
No, the reward pool is not unique, sorry. It's simply a number representing the GDP, the one and only product being Steem, productivity being measured by the number of transactions processed.
Name one aspect of Steemit's ecosystem that performs like socialism. Socialism requires a central authority to redistribute wealth. There's (technically) no central authority to Steemit. And the rewards are distributed by who has the most capital investment.
And don't confuse philanthropy with socialism.
Finally, I'm not against Kevin's ideas (it seems like your defending him). I just think I have a better solution. ;) Check it out.
Posted using Partiko Android