So that $100k was a one off event?

From the time it became clear that the HF was going to go through until now, the price of steem is down significantly. Number of posts, number of comments, number of votes, number of active users, and

Sure, perhaps I should word that differently. It takes a certain amount of resource credits to perform functions on the steem blockchain, and it takes a certain amount of steem power (SP) to have 'enough'

Does the 'price' of resource credits change with changes in activity levels?

Ugh, unrelated but a change to a 1-2 week power down should be our next hardfork.

I read November is a pretty good month for crypto historically.

PS. I love the idea that delegations be reserved for businesses/projects that actually have a revenue plan besides just selling steem. We desperately need to start bringing money into steem instead of

Since the community now has free downvotes, eliminating delegations for steemcleaners and spaminator seems warranted. There is no reason for them to be the highest rewarded "author" for months.

Agreed. They have larges stakes and free downvotes now. Cut the delegations.

Are there some that do the above and also collect from the SPS as well?

Bingo.

Not only that but where does it say it should be fair? The fairest thing is for people to earn relative to their stake, anything other than that brings subjectivity into the equation and the crab bucket.

You turned things personal very quickly, a sure fire tell of what someone does when realizing they are wrong in the debate.

Those are companies that derive value from advertising. Steem is the equivalent of the upvote on those platforms, which has no value, even though there are billions of users. You seem to be missing that

Please tell me how a model where people show up to get paid is sustainable? People who invest nothing, net earn rewards are the first in line to sell, that's not a sustainable model.

There are several Top 20 witnesses that post just about every day (and get their witness buddy's votes) along with collecting their witness inflation. Sounds a bit like double dipping to me.

Yep, it should be 3-5 votes per account.

See my reply below

It should be 3-5 votes per account, though that won't gain any support from the current group of witnesses because it could negatively effect them.

Yes, it is a huge deterrent to voting for someone that you are not sure if they will get any other votes. That change was setup to discourage 'abuse', but in reality it probably will end up hurting a lot