*Every time I try to move away from the topic of Steem/ Steemit, there is always something that draws me back in...*

https://snag.gy/47Zp9M.jpg

**Over the weekend, the Steemit team announced a major upgrade. Part of that upgrade includes, a Target Votes of 5 per Day instead of 40. I wasn't going to speak on the proposal *(I think other comments, like @donkeypong's one on the original post, have highlighted its pitfalls)*, until I read a [post](https://steemit.com/steem-help/@hisnameisolllie/the-new-5-vote-target-does-not-reduce-rewards-it-democratises-steemit-curation) today suggesting the proposal was a good idea. I figured it was a cue to break my silence as I do have ideas about the 'Steemit economy' that I feel make add a slightly different angle on the conversation.**

In later posts I hope to give my take on specific matters like,

* Blogging for a living, Authors Lists & Bot Curation
* 'Average' Users & the dilemma of the Casual Whales
* Mega-whales,curation teams & the 'business of Curation' 

However in this post I want to take a helicopter view and touch on first principles.

# Shared vision
 
I understand that no two people see things the same way. Everyone has a different perspective. I’m pretty certain everyone has a different vision of what Steemit is and what it can be.
 
In my mind there are two prevailing views. There are those who view Steemit as primarily a Social Media site and those that view Steemit as more of a Blogging Rewards platform. I think the conversations around the Target Vote of 5 per day, lays bare this divide.


## The purpose of 5 Votes per day

As per the [**announcement**](https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/announcing-steem-0-14-0-release-candidate) by **@steemitblog**,

>The purpose of this change is to rebalance power toward normal users and away from bots. You can still vote as often as you like, this change merely impacts the speed at which voting power is consumed.

**@ned** went on to further explain in the [**comments section**](https://steemit.com/steem/@steemitblog/announcing-steem-0-14-0-release-candidate#@ned/re-neoxian-re-steemitblog-announcing-steem-0-14-0-release-candidate-20160902t200650312z),

>The expected result of the change in target votes from 40 to 5 is less discrepancy between top paid posts and the long tail of paid posts by decentralizing the Steem Power allocated by each voter, primarily whales and bots. Under these rules, a person voting once per day at full power will have greater value than it would under current rules. The target votes per day had been changed once before from 10 to 40, however, voting regeneration had also been changed (from one day to five). Changing from 40 target votes to 5 without changing regeneration days allows Steem to ease into more optimal ratios for quality curation.


# Steemit as a social media site

The Target 5 Votes per day, makes sense if you see Steemit as primarily a social media site, which incidentally gives out rewards. "Social media" is about sharing and interacting. It's quick, easy, light-hearted and fun. Sharing can be anything; photos, useful information, things of interest, ideas or thoughts. Interacting can take many forms, from personal messages to full scale collaborations.

The key point from a Steemit perspective is that "quality curation" on a social media site like Facebook is very difficult. Posters are not necessarily setting out to produce high quality content every time they post. You can quite easily spend a couple of hours on Facebook and barely find five things worth upvoting.

# Steemit as a blogging rewards platform

On a blogging rewards platform, the model is for Steemit to attract quality blogger, vloggers and content providers. The best way is to think of Steemit as being akin to YouTube rather than Facebook. 

YouTube incentivises content providers to upload quality videos, the audiences are attracted as consumers of quality content with social interaction being incidental.

Steemit would need attract a wide diverse pool of **high quality** content providers in order to pull in a critical mass of new audiences.

If you spend a couple of hours on YouTube and you're likely to come across more high quality content than you would on Facebook.

Steemit has a bigger challenge than just the sheer quantity of quality content. Steemit has the issue that the majority of the voting power resides in a handful of 'active' mega-whales. These mega-whales should be incentived to spread their influence as far as possible in order to attract **and retain** quality content providers. 

I'd argue it is detrimental to the Steemit economy to have 'casual voting mega-whales' that can 'get away with' voting 5 times a day. This approach simply will not scale and stifle Steemit's growth.

# Mindset shift

Mega-whales need to shift their mindset for Steemit to succeed. Thankfully some are doing this. 

Steemit already attracts scores of quality contributions a day. If mega-whales choose to only vote 5 times a day, this would have the **opposite** affect of reducing the discrepancy between top paid and other posts. Rather than say 40 posts getting $50 payouts. 5 posts would get $400. It will be little consolation that less popular post may move from getting 2 cents to 16 cents by a 'supposed' boost in voting power by smaller Steem Power holders .

2 cents to 16 cents might have a wow factor if users are being rewarded for throwaway Facebook posts. However it doesn't mean much if users are spending time and creative energy making high quality content. 
 
Steemit needs ***meaningful*** financial incentives for those that consistently provide quality content. It should be less 'hit-and-miss.' Less 'post and hope.' Steemit probably needs more whales to share the burden of reward distribution. Not only does it need more whales, it needs whales to distribute rewards as widely as possible. Steemit should make turning "16 cent" payouts into "$50" payouts (on worthy posts) a priority, if it is to attract and retain quality contributors over the long term. With the best intention in the world, low Steem Power holders cannot do this without whale help.

# The scary & exciting future

The future of Steemit is both scary and exciting. Right now the Steem marketcap is around $100 million. If Steemit reaches a critical mass of users that marketcap could easily explode to $1 billion or even $10 billion.

With a $10 billion marketcap, a vote from a mega-whale, that previously moved a post from $0 to $200 could move a post from $0 to $20,000.

Rather than having 100- 200 pieces of quality content that bring value to the platform it could be 10,000 - 20,000 quality contributions. Bots, sophisticated Authors List, Curation Teams will be the future of mega-whale accounts. Mega-whale account will be quasi Publishing Houses for the authors/ posts they patronise. More whale voting, not less will need to be the order of the day.

When I hear talk of a Target of 5 Votes per day, it doesn't chime with my vision of Steemit. I don't see the "business of Curation" as a dirty concept. In my mind, **there is potentially too much money at stake for mega-whale, not to see themselves as a CEO of a medium size business.** 

Steemit has the potential to become a blogging rewards platform that creates sustainable jobs for Curators and a sustainable income stream content providers. Creating a real indigenous **Steemit** economy, is the first step towards [bootstrapping **Steem** as a digital currency](https://steemit.com/steem/@dan/steemit-s-evil-plan-for-cryptocurrency-world-domination).