1. thank you! @crimsonclad (this was not an attempt to grill you - it's not my style - it was a continuation of a discussion where there is a lot of confusion)

2. I have no idea who is putting money in the pockets of anyone. My point about the chart was - if there is a lot of green in the top 20 - that is a conflict of interest. And they need to be concerned about what a huge disparity that is.

3. I agree - too much all at once. Is it too late to take away the 50/50 off the hardfork?

4. I personally LOVE when you show up for every single witness chat that you can because you are a shining voice of reason. However, you do see that the 50/50 change in rewards will make it harder for the people coming onboard - and make a lot of people who are here - post less. I guess my question is - how is that a step in the right direction? Are we all just hoping that the little guy can eat it a little more, a little longer? and by we - I mean the powers that make the decisions. Cuz I've already lived through HF20 and watching countless leave. I know that one of the commenters was kinda like - oh well, they would probably have left anyway. when - no - they actually planned on staying and were very happy until they got the shaft.

one size does not fit all.

but we can clearly see the trend. 33% less for authors that go directly into the wallets of large curators, with NO WAY of recovering that loss. Say goodbye to that and watch it fly away to the big accounts, and no you can't debate it. We've decided for you, on your behalf, though it only benefits the wallets of the few. (you see my point?)

Is anyone seriously trying to promote that? and if so - why?

and if it's not too late - can we please take it off?

and if it is too late - i fear you're gonna start seeing a lot of powerdowns because people won't stay in a place where their former rewards are leaving their meager pockets to enter the very fat wallets of others. (for not a drop more work , mind you.)

and i've heard the answer to that... well, then I guess Steem wasnt for them! Fare the well and adieu! We will carry on without you.

But why can't it be - we are concerned about that - and see your point - and will table this for now, because we DO see its harmful to an entire THREE classes of five on this chain.

why is THAT not an option?

take it off and pass the other things in the hard fork that people generally agree with - and tackle this VERY HOT TOPIC as a singular discussion later.

(i know you took a lot of time from your day to write that post - no need to write a large one back - unless you'd like to. could you just respond to my questions?) if not - i understand! thanks for reading :)