>Then why have you not been more vocal about the majority having no say in the platform, this is the biggest punishement of all. 

because individuals rewarded other individuals based upon personal value of contribution and  level of Steem Power (contribution to the platform), which is exactly what I took from the white paper.

having to cater to the majority when I have less than favorable viewpoints to the majority does not work for me (not just on Steemit, either)

I have no clue where people get the idea that mediocrity and conformity are worthy of reward, and that any other rewards for any other effort must be restricted based on the approval of the mundane.  *there is nothing **wrong** with the average, btw, but I don't see it as the greatest judge of value*

So the majority *wants* a community where they pass each other a few cents here and there?  the majority *doesn't* want a shot at the gold ring with every post?  


The community will lose original and creative contributors that way.  those people will seek other venues.

I won't discount that such a community could draw in investors; PT Barnum had some things right, after all.

It's just not the vision I took when I started here.

I get there is systemic abuse by some whales - I get that abuse is compounded by bots.  some of those points were addressed by Tim upthread.  there are methods of potentially dealing with that, and flattening the reward curve seems the most promising.  

the question for me is *how much* commitment to the platform does a user have to put in before their vote counts.  there are different ways to commit:
+ monetary investment (objective standard, but opens the platform up to the abuses we have seen)
+ quality posting (subjective valuation, especially for material the majority is hostile to)
+ time put in (both commenting and blogging, but again subjective in value)

We could look at some *objective* standards to measure posting by - length, references provided - but again, the problem is that the overall value is still *subjective* (not to mention that any standardized system can be gamed).  What that means is that the only objective measure of value to the platform I see is Steem Power...which can be bought.

So this is the question:  ***who determines how the reward pool is divvied up?***
+ People who have made an objective contribution to the platform and the currency?
+ The majority of people who have unequal levels of contribution to the platform

I want to return to the statement I made
>If the community really wants to feel good about giving each other penny payouts for each others' cat pics

that is a pejorative statement of course, made in anger.  some people *do* like looking at these and find value in these exchanges.  there is nothing wrong with that.

but if we make the standard of reward based upon the community of catlovers (metaphor alert), we are going to lose passion, contrarian view, and originality.

thanks for the response