Never said poor unfortunate me, you're still not getting it. There's no emotions at all connected to what I said. I'm sure the "whales" are lovely people, it's about mathematics, not about hating on someone, like I said it's completely "fair" as it is. If the trend continues, Steemit will be unusable because 20-30 people can't "blow kisses" to the entire world. So at some point there will need to be some kind of re-balancing done.
(Unusuable as a way to earn rewards and get your stuff read).
Oh PP - I sense the conflict within. If 20-30 people blow kisses to 20-30 people each. Then those 20-30 blow kisses to another 20-30 and so on. The wealth will be far better distributed than it is in the real world. Not to mention the STEEM changing hands in the open market - the higher the price of STEEM goes the more diluted it becomes - someone has to be selling after all. It's just maths mate.
@sirknight your comment has caused me to coin a phrase "trickle down steemonomics"
boodles17 - great concept - time to write a Doctorate. 'Trickle down steemonomics' - you are a genius! (Sorry it took so long to read this btw.)
Lol...glad you like it!
"Oh PP - I sense the conflict within" Don't be like that, I'm not trying to have the typical internet argument, I'm not trying to "win". I'm trying to get across to you something which I can see you've missed. The key phrase is "snowball effect". Because if I have a large percentage of something and because of that I keep getting more of a percentage than others, the result is that you'll end up in a situation where a handful of people have everything and everyone else has nothing, even if they are passing rewards down. Again, there's no emotion in my post and no ill will to anyone, that includes you.
Some of what you are saying has already come to pass. The efforts at rebalancing, so far, seem unpredictable. The dynamics of the system need to be self balancing before Steemit exits beta.
It seems to need a conditional rebalancing initiation framework. As varying conditions exist the system should not remain static, but adjust to the current conditions. How this would be done, I don't know. How does one test for scalability without the scale?
It's a very complex issue, devs have to balance keeping minnows engaged, keeping whales rewarded for their stake and not tanking the Steem price, I don't envy them, it's a very hard job.
It's one of the things that I've wondered all along. It is spoken of as though the whales are the only ones who've invested, but my time is more valuable to me than their money. I've spent that time posting some things that could even save lives. Some of the large whales post garbage, worth nothing, and sit and soak up the reward pool. The investment of minnows time can be of much more value than those who simply stick a money vacuum into the reward pool and leave nothing for the rest of us.
Yeah some do, some post great content. But there's a lot of garbage that's earning hundreds of dollars. I have no problem with someone posting garbage and getting a lot of money for it, good for them I say.
The only real problem is the zero-effort garbage is far too visible. People chasing curation reward always go where the money is. It would be nice if there was a way to incentivise curation by quality rather than dollars, but don't know how that could ever be possible.
Half these garbage posts have barely any views on them as well, so it's not like people are really interested in what some dude had for dinner.