That report, and this one, shows part of the problem, and that the inflation is spreading influence.

The n2 worked with an 800mv cap on the biggest accounts.
Did it not also do a better job of rewarding 'good' content and curators?
That the pool was all going to the same accounts was more a function of the tiny pond than a failure of the n2?
Or, did i miss something there?

Is it better to drive off the small accounts with a tax?

Of course the selling ninjaminers, and other maximizers, wanted no restrictions on their ability to strip value from the project.
I think we can agree that short term behaviors like that have been suboptimal for the rest of us.

To get a grip on the selling, those selling most require some mitigation from the rest of us, or we are wasting our time here.

The ninjamine can only be sold once.
When does that run out?
Or, is problem the little authors that we can remove rewards from?

At the time of that report, the top ten votes took in excess of 25% of what was available to be had.
Not a wide distribution, imo.
We've tried just letting them run, isn't it time to rein them in?

We know that increasing vote value improves retention.
What i don't know is how much those ten votes are worth spread out to the rest of us.
The whale experiment took my vote from .00nothing to over .04stu.
Would that repeat today with an 800mv cap?

Steem is a public commons, the better data the common user has the better decisions they can make.

And honestly, isn't millions enough to pull out?
They gotta have billions?

(Damn touch screens, always doing things i didn't want it do.
I still don't have a smart phone for just this reason.)