Well, it's the discrepancy between what is factual and how advertising works.
If it is the case that the dumbest user is supposed to come here (who is considered the "masses"), he believes the advertising (can you blame him?) and expects to see what it offers him.

The masses only come if you offer them quick earning opportunities or fun and a special user experience of some kind. But everyone who knows how advertising works knows that this is just advertising and not reality.

However, if everyone who realises that it is advertising would behave accordingly, there would be no need for advertising in the first place. So those who act with financial risk here are dependent on those who take advertising literally, but at the same time no one who does so is taken seriously.
So if you, as an expert on the economic processes here, are annoyed by those who don't understand them (I don't mean you personally), that doesn't help you either. The common user who votes for a witness also expects rationality and knowledge of the situation from him, and the witness expects the same from his voter. But both have limited abilities and knowledge, as you pointed out in your last blog (that counts not only for the witnesses).

Your response reminds me of the saying "Look not at what your country can do for you, but at what you can do for your country." No matter how "stupid" a critique on the current situation seems to you, if you respond in such a way as to highlight a lack of commitment, you may win the argument, but you lose as a person.

Your point is emotional in this way, arguing a lack of work ethic, according to which a good person is a hard-working one.
If your goal is to motivate or enlighten, you could refrain from such comparisons about who has "done" how much and what since they started on the chain.

If you want achievers, you could take the ridiculous-sounding complaint of one individual as representative of the many who have certain irrational complaints in dozens of places and at all times. As a matter of fact, the many don't participate in politics as active commenters or proposal-givers. It is the few who, precisely by making their ignorance known, provide valuable clues to what the decision-makers can pay attention to. In fact, all repeat themselves non-stop. That's just the way it is.

The admittedly funny cartoon has the message that you as the answer-giver occupy the pulpit and the commentator stands there in the crowd and disappears as soon as you call him to work as a know-it-all (about him). How about changing the setting, getting off the pedestal and being the rational guy who manages to circumnavigate an irrational statement and inspire the one person to reconsider his view? By emphasising that your voice does carry weight, you come across as a poser. It may imply the opposite of what you intended to say.

Your super-fast research, resulting in the screenshot as proof of his illogic, ignores what you don't know. It doesn't matter how hard someone toils in your eyes or how much time or money they have invested/risked, they may have said or contributed something of value at some point to someone who matters in the platforms politics.

Quantitative assessment does not necessarily say a thing about quality. One can talk shit a hundred times and say or do something once that benefits someone else in the system; or made them reconsider. For indeed, every voice carries weight and while one may reject repetitive non sensical statements, they are taken as justified (perhaps against one's better judgement in your eyes). What you call entitlement.

Pointing out how little skin in the game someone has seems to me to be more of a common issue that influences sentiment and creates division. You could probably equally be criticised for rarely stepping outside your own bubble and seldom responding outside your expertise to the common economically untrained user as a commentator. Insofar as you are saying that you are giving this platform a loss as a blogosphere anyway, any argument that actually takes "blogging to make money" seriously must seem ridiculous to you. But then I am back where I began. Advertisement.