The blockchain rewards large stakeholders with the ability to draw extra rewards from the pool because when they bought in it either boosted or secured Steem's overall market value, not only that, by HODLing Steem (or keeping it powered-up) it creates a sort of artificial scarcity and thus prevents steem from easily flowing to the market which keeps prices stable and prevents market manipulation.

Investing in Steem vs. letting the money sit in a bank and collecting and APY is a risk as the market is very volatile. You're not going to get an equivalent APY on Steem. Based on Steem's rate-limited voting, it allows for stakeholders to draw only so much before the rate-limited abuse mechanism prevents overdrawing from the pool.

But, if you're going to disregard the merit of a stakeholder's stake by attacking the way they choose to draw rewards from the pool, your attacking the very foundation of why they may have invested in the first place. This action of downvoting has great potential to cause them to reconsider not only the HODL but also their investment.

You might think what they're doing is greedy, but the blockchain sets the stage for this behavior by giving larger stakeholders bigger votes. Truth is, even the "greedy folks" provided a service when they bought into Steem, and they continue to provide a service by staying powered-up.

Downvote these folks into oblivion, and they may oblige by selling to the market. Other investors looking from the outside in will take notice, and then you'll run into a real problem; Whose left willing to buy, and why? Show me an investor who wants to pay to be a crab in a bucket, and I'll show you 1000 more who want to be the crab who gets out of the bucket. Steem is already very niche as is, and we're lucky we have the investors that we do. Make it less accommodating to stakeholders, and fewer will invest.

P.S. Proof of brain cannot exist in a realm with unequal stake. What you have in reality is proof of wallet.