Sybil is largely addressed by stake weighted voting. All that is left is the "appearance" of support. Of the 76 downvotes, it is pretty clear that only a handful of people are behind them. Down voting a discussion that isn't paying anything out is also indicative of striking out to "hurt" rather than simply engaging in the discussion.
Most of the responses are "against me" and not even attempting to address my concerns.
Why reject the notion that voting is an expression of opinion? Why pull out the victim card and assume someone is hurt you (and in doing so attempt to delegitimize their actions), rather than respect that they disagree with you, and consider that maybe when intelligent people disagree with you, you are getting something wrong (or at a minimum failing to approach things in a manner that is community- and consensus-building)? Setting aside automated or explicitly strategic voting (clearly neither of which apply here), much of the time people vote for something they like or agree with and vote against something they dislike or disagree with. Do you consider it an attack meant to "hurt" you if people disagree with you or dislike what you say or how you say it?
Some of us feel that the problems with your post and the approach to the subject matter is more important than "your concerns", which frankly are rather trivial. If @ozchartart weren't on the trending page someone else would be. The same rewards would be paid out, and in much the same concentrated manner. Maybe the content of those replacement posts would be "better" but that is really inherently subjective. I'm not particularly a fan of either but I probably slightly consider @ozchartart as bringing more value to the platform than @krnel. Is my opinion "wrong"?
It has been known for more than a year now, that Dan simply cannot get the notion that disagreeing with him can be of any value... EVER!!!
He believes disagreeing with him is destructive and evil by definition... period, end of discussion.
I believe your concerns are warranted, but there are bigger issues to be addressed other than what we "think" is valuable or not valuable. Until we truly have a fair voting algorithm free from gamification, how are we to clearly examine how votes are being spent and how content is being valued? We can each argue what we think should be worth x amount, but the fact remains, we each value content differently. Until we can clearly show that value, the voting problem stays a revolving door. The amount of posts right now, created in the last few hours about this topic, are clear evidence that this problem is not going away until we find a solution for diluted metrics.
Also, no matter what your stake is worth, if you're diluting the metric data of the platform, you're engaged in sybil attack. People are farming curation rewards right now with sybil methods. Denying this is to ignore what's going on.
All voting is stake weighted. Whether they have 1 account with 100 STEEM or 100 accounts with 1 steem the potential rewards are the same. I actually believe there is a slight bias toward having it all in one account.
Our mathematical analysis of the system shows no advantage to sybil. It does manipulate the display ranking for "voted" sort order. We will probably remove that due to sybil issues.
How about the curation rewards gained from multiple accounts each with 100 STEEM, as opposed to one account with 100 STEEM? The person with 100 accounts benefits more, long term, and can manipulate rewards more heavily for other users, long term.
And the fact that it does dilute the metric data of the platform, should be a huge concern for Steemit, inc. The trending page for example should be ordered by real metric value, as it's not a fair representation of what the people are actually interested in. The trending page, as of right now, is a representation of individual value, not collective value, which is what "trending" means; the community, as a whole, is interested in it.
didn't I already explain this to you the other day
Curation rewards are also stake weighted and offer no advantage for dividing accounts and actually give slight advantage for merging funds into on account.
It shows what stakeholders, as a whole, are supporting.