This is within the context of the rewards structure changes proposed in the EIC. If I'm getting this wrong it's because you've explained it poorly, but in context, I interpret this to mean that because of the current rewards structure, people aren't vesting and therefor the price is falling.

That's fair. My main point is that our current economic model is not conducive for bringing in new investment. While I don't have sources to cite, it is based on a large number of conversations that I have had with existing and potentially new stakeholders over the past three years. I feel it is a self evident point to a large extent, as pretty much anyone here can have the same conversation with potential new investors and discover the same thing. (If you are actually able to convince people to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into STEEM - please let me know how.)

You claim that what really matters are large stakeholders. Again, where did I say this? ...

You are misquoting me. I was speaking strictly in terms of rewards. That is the way our rewards system works - the stakeholders with the most funds have the most control over the distribution of rewards.

If you were me and I promised you all of these changes were going to make things better, but then couldn't cite any real world examples backing up my claims from any other area of real world economic studies, would you trust me?

But that's the thing. I'm not sitting here "promising" you that this will fix things. I'm actually doing more the opposite. I'm telling you that I don't know whether it will work, but this is what I see as the best path forward based on my understanding of the economics and community.

If you couldn't see any detailed polling from the community if the proposed changes were what they wanted

The "polling" has occurred over a several year period. There have been several hundred posts where the community has discussed and debated a lot of these proposals.

I see it as my responsibility to do my best to understand what is best for the platform and community and act accordingly. I also see it as my responsibility to do my best to explain my reasoning behind my decisions, and accept constructive criticism and adapt if I discover that my positions are clearly wrong. I do not however see it as my responsibility to explain it to the extent where everyone agrees with my point of view and understands every detail of every conversation that I've had over the past three years to arrive at my decision.

I don't think that the number of your witness position necessarily makes adept at understanding how all these changes are going to affect us.

I want the price of STEEM to go up. I want authors who are contributing value to the platform to earn more. I want stakeholders who are "milking" the system and taking rewards without actually adding anything of value to earn less. While we may strongly disagree on what is the best path to get there - are we at least on the same page in terms of overall objectives?

You are a large stakeholder and you stand to gain a large financial reward from this change. Am I incorrect in this assumption? If so, I'd like to see the math proving me wrong. If I am wrong, I apologize.

I earned 0.987 SP from curation last week. Going from 25% curation to 50% curation would likely double that. I am certainly not going to retire from an extra 1 STEEM per week.

I am not going to earn a cent from the inflation that is going into the SPS, as I am not planning to make any proposals.

I do own 77,000 STEEM, and I earn ~300 SP per day from my witness rewards. If the price of STEEM goes up 2x, I am going to make a lot of money. If the price of STEEM goes down by 50%, I am going to loose a lot of money. My incentives are 100% aligned for me to care about whether the STEEM price goes up or down. My goal is to make it go up.

In the end, you and the other Top 20 have done a real crap job at convincing the rest of us that these changes are the right course of action, and you're right, you are free to vote however you like.

This ties into what I said above. I do not see it as my job to convince anyone. I consider it my responsibility to do my best to make the right decision for what is best for the platform. If I am not doing a good job at that, then I should be replaced.

The crux of the matter is that - at this stage at least - I don't think you or the others are worthy of your positions or have earned the right to make these changes.

There is plenty of legitimate criticism to make of the witnesses. For a lot of the witnesses (not going to single anyone out) I agree with you 100%. At least for myself though, I do consider myself to be the right person for the job. I take these decisions very seriously, and I work very hard to understand all of the repercussions from the decisions we make. I spent countless hours talking to users, stakeholders, other witnesses, and Steemit, Inc. in order to get the best possible understanding of what is going on.

While you may not agree that the decision I am making is "right" (and maybe it really is the wrong decision) - I assume you that I am doing my best to make as informed and correct of decision as I can to lead to the best possible outcome for our platform / community.