If I purchased tokens in order to support content, that's coming out my pocket. Well, technically it's value moving from one wallet/account to another. Voting is a new form of tipping. We just call it something else and pretend we're not tipping.

I often wonder why it's necessary to stick to that old original vision from Steemit.

If I buy LEO (as example) in order to support content, that is coming out of my pocket. It's like buying a subscription or the rights to tip. It's also one hell of a good deal. Consumers can support/tip content creators at no direct cost since the money they spent remains in their possession. Consumers buying the tokens with the goal of tipping/voting is what actually has the potential to literally increase the value of the token. One content creator with enough of a voice could pull millions of tokens off the market at these prices and make one whale out of thousands of supporters.

If the entire platform was loud about that concept, consumers become the investors (but not the only investors). Instances of actual content is supported organically and gets a lot of eyes. Those eyes share and those instances of content traveling outside become free marketing for the entire platform. That sharing behavior is actually what helped Youtube explode onto the scene and become massive.

I look at some of these instances where downvotes are used to lower rewards. I suppose one the main contributing factors would be those voting aren't actually consumers. Acting as promoters, but blind. Pushing the work up to the high traffic area and even there it's struggling to get views. If a promoter did that in life with those results, they'd be out of a job.

But I often wonder if people would be bothered if a 'big name' showed up, made a few 'whales' out of thousands of consumers, then earned the most each day, plus had eyes and engagement galore. Downvotes in that scenario would seem out of place. But if those consumers, over time, got lured into the trap of setting and forgetting (auto votes without views), that would defeat the purpose of the whole thing. At that point the content creator did nothing wrong, yet they'd be penalized, because some third party offered a service/interference. **Hmmm. Just thinking out loud at this point.