Thanks for helping me to gain understanding.
I am curious as to why there is the manipulation of rewards for curation dependent on time, and wealth. I see no good reason why an upvote of someone with a lot of sp three hours after a post should be valued any differently than an upvote from someone with little sp two hours after a post was made.
I can see why a post from someone with higher reputation might be valued more than someone with lower reputation, and do support this, as a means of preventing bad actors from harming good.
I am suspicious that varying the value of votes by the wealth of the voters permits gaming the system and potentiates a kind of economic censorship, in which the wealthy would have the ability to control the speech of the rest of the community.
While there are benefits of wealth, I do not think censorship, or a form of economic blockade, which is exactly what is happening to Youtube presently, is at all desirable, tenable, or beneficial the Steemit in the long run.
Indeed, if this is actually the case, which I am still trying to ascertain, that kind of systemic inequity will render Steemit both a tool of repression, and highly vulnerable to competitive platforms that do create fair valuations of peoples contributions to the community.
Are you able to help me understand better this aspect of Steemit?
Thanks!