Well said! - I wasn't talking about shutting down anyone. It's obviously not good for Steemit to censor specific authors.
- This is more about the person who votes than the author in my opinion.
We should strive to reward as many authors as possible. That is what will encourage people to join. This is how we will get massadoption in the long run.
Having only a handful of authors though, with earnings of $5,000 per week meanwhile newcomers are struggling for 3 months to earn their first dollar... That is not good for Steemit.
I don't have problems with users rewarding what they believe is high quality content. What I do see as a problem, is that one person earns anything between $200 and $400 on each post, 10 times per day. - And I see that as a problem because most of the rewards are due to one user who never upvotes anyone else.
That being said, just like I stated in the previous comment. What if @freedom, @berniesanders (which people have been talking about lately) and all the other whales started to upvote their own posts or just supported one other author... - What if @ned did the same thing?
- There wouldn't be any rewards remaining for the rest of us. And that is the real problem here.
Massadoption will never work if people never supports anyone besides themselves. - And serious investors realize that they will make more if they spread their wealth across the entire platform. That's why they're voting with low percentage votes on multiple authors, instead of giving all their votes to one single author.
- Steemit is a long term investment.
I don't have accurate numbers but there's probably more than a handful of people on Steemit right now who could give themselves $1000+ per day if they wanted to... - But if they did that... The price of Steem would fall, SBD would fall and Steemit would ultimately die.
That is why #rewardpoolrape is bad for the entire community.
"That is why <insert label the State doesn't like, which is not clearly defined, and the State can therefore assign to anything> is bad for the < patriots of our great nation!> "
Won't you please think of the children?
If you allow vaguely defined "crimes" to justify vigilante justice, you'll get lots of vigilante justice.