Well said and good point. 

### I think I'll be buying some STEEM and powering up later tonight! 

I've  never done either before.

OK , I believe you lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU

I will admit!

I invested $100 to try out the Steemit Platform...

Yes @timcliff,  you are right. There are many good peiple in this social platform. I believe steemit will be better in the future. Mostly I agree with @abit, but one think that make me disagree. Sometimes I feel @abit too "agresive", ha...ha...! Nice!

I don't know how to say this, but I always agree with @abit and @smooth methods because they know a lot about steemit platform and they were here since ever, plus people forget about how many times and how much money they give away back in the good days. Now they are complaining about few flags? Lol, I wish I make $100 and get flagged to $50! I don't know how is to make so much and I don't really care because the main goal is in the future!
@timcliff, you are one of my witnesses I vote for! Cheers!

Finally, a new breath! A hope for many steemians!

It makes me sad that the people who care the most about the community are being voted out of the witness list. The experiment has only had positive effects so far, sure some people have had their rewards reduced but it is for the benefits of the majority and we've seen everyone benefits from it one way or another. Blockchains are valuable because they empower people the more they do the more valuable they are,  the fact that a few people control everything on steem makes it a worthless blockchain. 
I am seriously questionning the security of steem to protect the interest of the majority if people like smooth and abit are being voted out. I think we need to start a petition or something to make sure they stay on that list, these guys  have done far more for the community than most in the top 20.

Yes, I spoke to smooth. He feels that for steem to rise, obviously the community needs to grow, and if minnows and dolphins have votes that actually carry weight, it stands to reason that it would be more appealing for people to be here, producing and engaging.  He's more than willing to sacrifice rewards in the short term towards this aim, and he feels those that are opposed to this are being short sighted.  
Of course I understand why everyone (including me) was upset the first day or two having absolutely no idea what was going on, only that their posts were suddenly being downvoted by whales.  But by now most people have been clued in I would imagine. As soon as I understood it I made a post that we needed to stop complaining and start making this experiment work for us, use our newfound voting strength to vote on the content we like and make a difference.  And I have certainly seen a difference--I just added eight cents to this post :) 
steemit is one big experiment in and of itself, why shouldn't people experiment within it to see what works best?  
Thank you Tim for being a voice of reason and encouragement!

<blockquote>
Then @smooth and @abit are not your enemy!
</blockquote>
I never considered them as enemies anyway. :) And everything which I will write now is only my personal point of view. I don't feel offended if other members disagree and if finally things won't go in my preferred direction.
<blockquote>
The impression from pretty much every new users that I talk to is that the site is just about earning whale votes. The interactions and votes that you get from all the 'regular users' don't matter. It is a small fraction of the community that decides what gets rewarded vs. what doesn't for everyone else. Is that the platform we want?
</blockquote>

You are right that it <em>is</em> problematic if the votes of a few users count much more than the votes of all the rest. But instead letting whales counter-voting other whales in my opinion one should solve the problem by changing the code: a whale-vote shouldn't simply have that much power as it has now. A good first step would be a linear correlation between voting power and steem power. We should collect other ideas as well.

But the whale-votes are not the only problem: you wrote about the "interactions and votes that you get from all the 'regular users'" ... unfortunately also most "regular users" who vote on my articles have never read them anyway: They are auto-following other users or bots of whom they think are made "wise" decisions ("wise" in a sense of making as much as possible profit). Yes, I like the money which I receive through these auto-voting mechanisms but I think in the end that also can't be the sense of a platform like this. I would prefer a place where people <em>read</em> what others write. Also here one could change something in the code in a way that a vote counts more, if someone did open an article (and also didn't close it again within seconds - other ideas appreciated).

<blockquote>
You may disagree with their method ... They are using it to direct the platform towards what they feel is best. This decision ... was not selfish.
</blockquote>

Right, I am sure they try their best with only good intentions as well.
If their behavior is "selfish" is a difficult question: If they hope to increase the value of steem in the long run (by giving up short term profit) one could call that "selfish", too - but considered that way I am selfish as well ...

<blockquote>
The main issue that people have with the 'experiment' is their method. It requires them to downvote in order to cancel out the votes of whales that are refusing to participate.
</blockquote>

As I wrote above I think it can't be the solution not to let whales vote anymore - everybody should have the freedom to vote for articles he likes. Instead of that the code should close the gap between the voting power of the different members. Maybe there are other ways to compensate large stake holders for the loss of voting power (maybe by giving a higher rate of interest for bigger amounts of steem power?). 

<blockquote>
Do we want the platform to continue to be run by the whales, or do we want the votes of regular users to matter?
</blockquote>

I prefer the latter, that means @abit and @smooth pursue the right aim in my opinion, but I doubt the anti-whale votes can be the solution in the long run (I still didn't mention the fact that new users get scared by seeing so many flags all the time and don't understand the reason). And by the way I <em>do</em> want that votes of regular users matter - but in my eyes bots are not "regular users". Regular users are humans who watch/read and understand what other users write. :-)

it is not good for minnows and dolphins that usually *don't* get whale hits to have those rare whale hits jerked out from underneath them.

I am not going to get a lot of big payouts, due to what I write about.  It's *good* for me to get an occasional whale hit, because otherwise, I will not make any return on my time investment here.

If the community really wants to feel good about giving each other penny payouts for each others' cat pics, that's one thing. *Hmm, that sounds a great deal more condescending than what I'm aiming at.*  There's nothing wrong with that, but if the community wants a diverse range of topics to be addressed here, then we can not rely on the community to reward contributors whose work does not interest or even offends the majority.

That is where the whale home run comes in.

Is the purpose of the experiment to see how the platform operated without whale influence?  Again, that is one thing.

>This decision must not have been easy. It was not selfish. They are going against the grain of the platform. They are sacrificing their own curation rewards that they could be getting by just continuing to upvote content. They are making a lot more enemies than friends.

I understand that.  I'm not mad at them personally.  But I have always disliked group punishment, which is what this is.

*Does a **good** ( a counter vote weighed upon the quality of the post, and the commitment the contributor has made to the community at large) whale downvote counter an **abusive** whale upvote, and vice versa?*...or are we looking forward to a time when whales aren't allowed to use their investment for their own interest AT ALL?

Do we really want to pull down any crab trying to climb out of the bucket?

This leads to another point.  Why would someone invest in the currency or the platform if their own curation ROI is minimal?
*Thanks for the $10,000... Mr. Investor...I hope you enjoy the same ROI that the guy that invested $100 makes*

If no one invests big money, we stay at a low market cap (Stephen Kendal addressed the dangers of  that a few days ago).

> It is a small fraction of the community that decides what gets rewarded vs. what doesn't for everyone else.

Which is kind of the point of the platform.  Invest to have a voice here...the more invested, the greater the voice.  The *hope* for minnows and dolphins is to contribute enough content to earn whale votes and *eventually* whale Steem Power.  Investment folks invest money, contributors invest time and effort.

>You may disagree with their method, but they are doing what whales are supposed to do with their stake. They are using it to direct the platform towards what they feel is best.

Understood, and I don't contest their right to do so; I just think that the experiment is doing more harm than good.  I also understand we are still in beta, and seeing what sticks to the wall right now.

Can we get a heads up, perhaps, on how long the experiment is going to run?  That might allay some of the hostility towards it.

*Disclosure time - I got smacked down on three posts today, which were written and "rewarded" before the experiment started.  Obviously that affects my view of the experiment ;>*

wow! thank you for speaking out my voice! :)  I feel sad to see so many good writers feeling sad but meanwhile I don't quite agree with them. I couldn't help wondering if ***everything*** being transparent is really the best way for a human society? No answers.
By the way, my spare money had long been squandered on expensive Steems already. If I am to buy more, my wife will find out. See? transparency!? ... no, no, no ... :)

>It is a small fraction of the community that decides what gets rewarded vs. what doesn't for everyone else. Is that the platform we want?

Umm... Isn't that exactly what's happening right now? There are essentially two whales telling everyone how voting should be taking place and deciding on what gets rewarded. 

I'm sure that was an innocent oversight on your part.