Who said anything about fair? I am talking about economics. Please show me a model of how what you are suggesting is going to make steem sustainable long term. People arbitrarily voting new users for the

Of course they should, but nothing you have suggested guarantees it will grow the market of steem.

If new users want to earn more rewards, they simply buy more stake, simple as that. Otherwise others on the site can feel free to tip them for their work if they feel it is worthy of such.

It's performing so poorly because it has had an inflation rate north of 10% through much of its existence. You are comparing it to coins with low single digit inflation rates. Of course it is going to

The current EIP is so focused on stopping abuse, which our own white paper tells us we shouldn't be focusing on, that it is hurting growth. The fact that a post has to get to $4 before votes reach a linear

As far as voting for new authors and new smaller users, the current setup actually discourages that as you need to get your vote over $4 or so to even reach a linear vote. It actually disincentivizes voting

There is no "end to profiteering", the fact you are even trying to shows how little you understand economics and human nature. The system should be designed in a way to encourage people to be

You keep referring to ninja miners like they are some evil force, all one has to do is purchase more steem if they wish to make them less relevant. Something that is getting easier and easier to do as

I followed your replies, you speak a lot of truth. To me it simply comes down to economics... and a system where the more you buy the more you earn sounds a lot more sustainable than one where downvote

It's not unfair in the least because if you want to earn more you simply buy more. It's actually a very sound economic idea and one that is likely to have better staying power than upvoting high quality

This is very good. I like it. It will be a constant battle fighting self voters and potentially will end up doing more harm than good. Potentially much more.

Fair enough. Though I would argue that the term "general consensus" is a misnomer as it really is just a few of the more influential whales and witnesses that decide most of the direction on

People are always welcome to buy more steem, power it up, and form their own "groups". In fact one could argue that kind of activity would be more beneficial for prices than arbitrarily voting

About curation, looking at the activity on your burn posts from the other day, that is simply not factual. Many of the largest votes came several hours after those were posted. Though I get what you are

So 50% is the arbitrary cutoff then? Anyone that gives 50% or more of their votes to the same people is an "abuser". Hmm I actually see a lot of accounts that fall into your arbitrary definition

If every user started doing this, then there would be no social platform at all. Everyone would collect their 50%(ish) in curation for voting these and no one would actually vote for content. This doesn't

It's pretty sad that this comment is 4th "best content" on the trending page right now. Can these whales seriously find no better content to reward than this?

Wasn't the fine related to the original ERC tokens used for raising capital, for violating securities laws? Which were then exchanged for the EOS coins at a later date? Which is also why the EOS coin is

I am assuming they are doing this in order to earn more from their ad revenue, no? Are we sure we want to go down a path that may start cutting off their ad revenue? If they are not able to make enough

I know what you are saying here, and it might sound right on the surface, but economically I am not sure it is the best play. Most of these guys have bought steem and continue to buy steem. If the goal