Thank you for chiming in to this important topic. That's the part I really like about this network. You don't feel as helpless when you see that valid concerns of the users are seen and evaluated critically. I hope that the other witnesses follow this example and explain their reasoning about the situation of the reward distibution.

In my view this is a conflict between people who view Steemit as a **short term cash grab opportunity** who just move on once the system fails (though I could give them the benefit of doubt and assume they are not even realizing the long-term consequences).

On the other hand you have those who believe in the value of a decentralized **social** network. This is a long-term strategy focusing on sustainabilty. The social aspect would fail, once even more people realized that social interaction and good content is actually **not** the best way to advance on Steemit. Yes, they might find friends and learn new things on here. Maybe that's enough for them, they just bury their head in the sand about the bigger picture  and focus on those great parts (a pretty common strategy actually as far as I have seen).

But while they care about communication and the content of the users, those who don't do this just overtake them left and right which might in the end lead to discouragement  of those users from the second group, who are the ones creating real value (and therefore stabilize or advance the overall value of steem).

Of course there are also people falling kind of in the middle between those extremes.

However, it is possible I am missing something important out of the bigger picture, so I am looking forward to the discussions. I'll keep an eye out for more opinions on this topic.