I’d like to know if the reward pool increases or decreases based on the total of powered-up Steem? If this is the case, then chasing off stakeholders no matter how good or bad their voting history will affect the total amount of rewards in the pool. We see people try to protect the commons, as you call it, with flags. Now if this results in dejected stakeholders who feel disenfranchised from their investment, then the next logical move for them is to go liquid by powering down. In this scenario powering down will cause a smaller reward pool. Even worse, if those little piggies as people see them, go to the market, it’ll cause the value of Steem to decrease. If the premise of this commentary is untrue, then why distribute unequal votes at all? So yeah, folks like Marky mean well, but I wonder if he understands the equal and opposite market reaction that it causes, and that’s outside of all the interpersonal turmoil that flagging does to self and others. If you ask me, this behavior is on par with measuring the efficacy of a carbon tax without taking into consideration the cons. There might be a net gain, and a net loss, or maybe they both cancel each other out making it a fruitless endeavor in its entirety. Imagine if STINC and other condensers or wallets implemented a power down quiz asking people why. This, so we can gift the community with feedback concerning the main reasons that people power down and sell.