I have just read my own reply before reading yours in order to refresh my memory of what's been said here so far. I should say that the tone of my comment could have been improved upon, but in truth I did not expect a response, and so I didn't think to make the effort to uphold myself in the manner in which I typically would when debating a serious issue. 

With that said, it does seem as though you have misinterpreted the overwhelming majority of my comment, for as I said, I didn't expect a response from you, and so my comment was for those who I expected to read it, not for you. 

I don't know what your relationship with fyrstikken is, nor do I consider it relevant in this context. If that was in response to the bold comment at the end, again that was not aimed directly at you. That was a comment to those dolphins who have already made a lot for keeping their mouths shut on the abuse we all know they've witnessed, for I believe it is time for some influential members of the community to start speaking out against abusers instead of continuously advocating  for their increasingly despicable behaviour by remaining silent. But again, this was merely an opportunity I seized to say something that's been on my mind. It's not tied specifically to vote-selling and so if you want to speak on the comment in bold at the end, then we can discuss that in a separate thread.

But for now, let me address the points that I do feel matter.


> If Ned made a post about killing someone, if I took it seriously I would call the authorities.

Though you haven't said it in this sentence, I am going to presume that you mean "with Steemit funds" as that is the question that was posed. It sounds to me that you then already agree with me that if someone wants to use their stake for illicit purposes, then others have not only the right but the obligation to intervene.

> I would not buy a toddler.

This doesn't really answer the inferred question. I used a child as an extreme example to make the point that because something is for sale does not mean it ought to be.  Is this something you would also agree with?

> As for the rest of your opinion on what and how the economics work out it is an experiment and I want to see us attract investors. I stand by my view that if investors come it will not be for the content or a perfectly functioning reward system. It will be for the tech, the traffic or the crypto. There are hundreds of sites that people can share their writing. Most of them do not have investors.

It is an experiment indeed, for we've been told that they're attempting to try something new here.  If we are going to do everything exactly the same as it is done in the world beyond the blockchain; then why refer to it as an experiment at all? 

I would argue that attracting investors ought not to be a priority. There is enough value in this ecosystem already. But, to better respond to this point I will pretend for a moment that I do think attracting investors ought to be a priority right now. If that's the case, then the type of investors we attract is of the utmost importance, for they are typically going to be more influential than the thousands of minnows who simply sign up and attempt to earn their stakes. 

If you create an environment where vote-selling is an acceptable practice, then you are going to draw in investors who are comfortable with that. This means that if a lot of the most powerful members of the STEEM ecosystem are making the bulk of their profits through the selling of votes, then Steemit and STEEM will evolve in such a way as to accommodate and facilitate the practice- rather than evolving around the more appropriate notion of fairness.

If however, we embraced this an experiment, and remembered that the reason we needed this experiment was because the old way was not working very well for most, then we might not so quickly justify abuse by pointing out the window and saying, "look, they've always done this."

It happens in the real world is not a legitimate justification to permit abusive behaviour within an experimental economy that purports itself to be striving for better.

One seriously needs to consider the mindset of a whale who would sell votes on this platform. We are talking about people who already have so much influence on this platform they could make more than dolphins make through posting simply by upvoting content. Curation rewards exist after all to incentivize fair voting.

But these whales are willing to continue cashing in on the curation rewards they are paid to make sure that all deserving get to eat, and are now getting the poorest of us to send them money just for an upvote that they're paid to hand out for free anyway?

This is deeply immoral, because one can never know exactly how many mouths will not be fed because of the actions they have taken- very unnecessary actions if you consider the ease of earning more STEEM for whales.

It doesn't take much in the way of reflection to ascertain that this greed comes from a place of fear. We are all humans, and so we need only look inside ourselves to learn why others do the things they do. It is clear to me that whether it be fear of not having enough, fear of looking weaker than other whales, or fear of being less influential and therefore having to rely on their personality, it is most definitely fear that leads to greed.

So do we need people whose entire agendas are dictated by fear to be the most powerful within the community? Where would that get us? - hint; look out the window.

Fear aside, how about the fact that by selling votes, these whales of reversed the distribution of STEEM on the network. It  is now being concentrated within the wallets of a few(though they may have many wallets), and so each time any person buys a vote, we are making a member of the community who cares only about their own prosperity- and who is willing to impoverish others to get it - more powerful. That's a dangerous road that leads to future where a few megawhales have complete control over how the reward pool is distributed.

If even that is not enough; then what about the dangers of vote-selling to not just minnows who are unwilling to buy votes- but to every single holder of STEEM. I refer to the obvious truth that this platform became a pyramid scheme the moment we allowed vote-selling to thrive. New users come here and send their money up the ladder to those who already have the most. It should not take a mathematician to see that this leads only to a few unfathomably wealthy people, and countless poor ones. (That is, if it doesn't get brought down like bitconnect in light of this vote selling fiasco)

> There are hundreds of sites that people can share their writing. Most of them do not have investors.

As you said, this is not a site like any other. This is an experiment. The supposed purpose of that experiment is to do things better than they were done before - to do things *fairer.* That was the chief selling point when I joined, and we have done a horrible job of living up to it.

Vote selling perpetuates inequity, and more than that, it makes members of the community who care  little about the community, the most powerful ones in the community. Why would anyone want that?

> When I trade with someone in cash or in crypto their financial status has nothing to do with the deal.

This is not true. The wealthiest of us always pay the least for things, if they pay at all.

> The deal is about a product if I buy milk, I do not pay based on the financial status of the seller, I pay based on the price of milk.

Again, untrue. The financial status of the seller is undoubtedly a primary factor dictating the price of the milk.

But, let's stop talking about milk and trading. This does not matter. Let's stop using the outside world to justify what goes on within this new, experimental ecosystem.

Let's instead just ask a few simple questions;

What is the purpose of curation rewards?

Should whales be receiving them for selling votes?

If we are to get rid of one; curation rewards or vote-selling; which should we get rid of?

- I hope you don't mind but I'm going to ignore your last two questions because as I explained, they aren't within the context of the debate.