LOL your vote was worth more than most of my posts take in =p
I appreciate your considered reply. While you apparently seem to curate just as I do, which is to simply vote for stuff you like, I note that that are vote cliques, bots, and the like, that do curate as a means of garnering income.
Were voting power not weighted by Steem power, do you think the attraction you have to Steem would disappear, or is it possible that Steem would still be an attractive investment?
Since I joined Steemit in May, Steem has declined in market cap from about 15th to about 22nd now. I conjecture that the appeal of the idea behind Steemit (that content is rewarded through curation, and rather than the platform reaping the rewards, it is the posters themselves that get paid), is largely moot, because the largest holders of SP, such as @dan and @freedom, are beyond competition.
A new guy like me, or even modest investors like yourself, are left with but the crumbs that the wealthiest accounts just fail to absorb. When most new accounts, drawn here by lurid tales of posts that take in $30k (as @dollarvigilante's first post did, he says), find out they can't get that kind of instant wealth, they are discouraged, and give up.
Were rewards more evenly distributed (note: I am not talking about redistribution of wealth, merely allowing curation to be less manipulated for profit), I believe the real power of Steemit to blossom would reward investors far more, through capital gains, than the current potential of rewards to be manipulated for profits.
As Steem resists the kind of appreciation that Steemit becoming THE social media platform of the 21st century would potentiate, capital gains of tens of thousands of points remain unrealized. Despite my not being well heeled, and deeply invested in Steem, I strongly advocate for those capital gains being realized by investors, because I want Steemit to replace Fakebook.
I really think it's only a matter of time before Fakebook is taken down, and I like Steemit.