I addressed this earlier today. It's a fair point. So are mine. It's a nuanced issue. I have also demonstrated in many ways that my time horizon for Steem is long term -- by earning a ton of steem writing, curating, commenting for over a year, by buying more Steem on a net basis than all but a handful of people, and by buying a chunk of Steem this week. But read on my full comments.
Neither here nor there, I was an early supporter of Cheetah, and you've always been one of my favorite Steemians.
Thanks for the explanation link! Nuanced indeed, hence my post about it.
I think it's worth you making a post about your views. It is absolutely a valid point of view saying that it's within your right to do so. But I'd say @liberosist has a good response here worth reading. You and other large stakeholders might stand to achieve a higher return on investment long term, by spending the extra effort on voting on content that will make us go to the mainstream.
And secondly, thanks for the support -- it's greatly appreciated! :)
I regularly try and upvote content that is underseen but it's hard when most people just herd into crap like TDV and the same 10 people, half of whom are snakeoil salesmen. That's a harder problem to solve. I take the tact of trying to encourage and cultivate pretty random writers who add something. It's a mixed bag but we've also seen that sign-ups have been gated because of costs that may now be resolved so maybe we'll see more competition and real growth.
One thing I've noticed though is that in terms of time and rewards, previously curating was more valuable than upvoting my own content by a lot. Curating depending on being a thought leader and being rewarded for that -- it involved other people agreeing with you for good returns. This simplification alters that dynamic and removes the dependence of my rewards on other people for me as an orca.
It's early yet, anything that happens in the next months is transient, so more experimentation to be had.