My condolences to those of you who have spent years accumulating Steem. Your investment of not just money, but time, to solidify positions you foresaw strengthening your growing communities as well as in the hopes of growing what you believed was to be the goal for this aspect of the chain has taken much of your energy. I imagine for some the proposed changes are probably frightening.

Without delving into my opposition to the changes, will play devils advocate here and mention something that was obvious to me very quickly after joining.

It is easy to point to the greed of the whales. They run the profit bots, and they certainly make this statement laughable

Ultimately, the decision of when to begin work on these improvements, and in which hardfork to include them, will be up to the Steem community and the Witnesses they elect to approve Hardforks.

source

Despite that, on the current course Steem has been taking it is unsustainable in my estimation. I read in one of your earlier posts that it was asserted by some you interact with that authors were a drain on the system. In some ways this is true. True in the sense that many authors here do not invest in the project, they are here to get paid and cash out as quick as they can receive. This exacerbates the flood on the markets that have propelled Steem down the ranks despite the level of activity we see. It is easy to talk on the lack of future vision of those with a lot of stake, but rarely do you see any bat an eye on the majority of small users who milk what they can out of here.

The few (in comparison to the numbers cashing out) who do power up for the future are unable to make a dent in the flood of Steem hitting the markets.

If Steem is to stop hemorrhaging in value and cost, it must reinvent itself somehow. Yet it is in the unenviable position of needing the minority future minded community members while needing to figure out a way to wean itself off of relying on them, as that model is not working.

Sadly, the hard medicine necessary is not being acknowledged openly, and as with all approaches that are lacking in sober appraisal, it is creating more friction than it must as it chooses the death of a thousand cuts rather than taking all the fallout that would accompany brutal honesty.

Many of the authors who offer quality will leave as a result, as they are not only shown they are not appreciated, but in some ways are being insulted, as though all posts are equal. I get that there are a ton of posts showing breakfast, or this or that challenge, or pictures of the latest bag of weed etc. Not a lot of effort posts. They help sustain the image that authors are draining the system, especially when many of them cash out constantly. They will probably stay, because why not? Posting the latest bud isn't that hard. Authors who research, artists who create, musicians sharing their talent. Some will say no thanks.

If this is to be about investors as the main target (which they need to just come out and say is more important than quality and communities), regular members who invest slowly need to take stock and understand investment always seeks a higher yield from its investment. When there is no more to squeeze, investment flees to the next opportunity. Where will they have to target next to squeeze?

Done rambling.