>Steem aim at is making the most useful information at the top of Steem. The most useful information is specific to each individual. We don't have the same perspective

Just a random thought here. The old system made it beneficial for people to just upvote the same old people all the time. This doesn't mean they are creating good content. Just that people always upvote them. 

I think that the issue is we are upvoting individual, and not content. 

So many people are auto upvoted, they could post a PoS, like a literal picture of a PoS and get over $100.

This isn't helping Steem. And I think that people with bot armies, aka, the person I have been posting about lately, would get extreme rewards just because they have 1000s of accounts.

You express yourself very well.

That being said, I misread part of your previous reply and I thought you said votes should be more equal, something close to 1 person 1 vote. 

> Those who have the most to lose, the largest investors, must have larger votes.

I mean to say proportional to their stake as opposed to 1 person 1 vote. 

Policing/flags are necessary because if they didn't exist then abusers could just vote themselves all the time and they would end up owning most of the stake. Dan has stated such and said if flags were to be removed, he would prove his point with upvoting himself all the time most probably with the use of a bot.  

As for the non linear reward, the logic is the same, under the current rule if my assessment is correct the abusers will end up making the most money because it's easier to abuse the rule than to police the abusers.  

Right now, it's easier to use a bot to create 10 posts a day and upvote those posts with a bot than to police those abusers. 

Under a non linear curve new dynamics are created which are explain in Dan's post Evil whales. 

Under n^2 it becomes more profitable to try to predict what the largest whales are going to vote on than to vote for oneself. 

On the other hand, non linear reward curve leaves open the possibility for the largest whales to abuse the system but it would be possible to police them while under the current system pretty much everyone besides the witnesses have incentives to abuse the systems and thus the system become unpoliceable. 

Under a non linear reward, the largest whales could try to abuse the system but then they would screw with their investment or be police by larger whales or group of whales. (whales can police other whales but no one can police millions of minnows) It would be really easy to monitor the voting pattern of the largest whales and thus if they have abusive pattern, investors would avoid investing decentivizing most whales to abuse the system. 

Also, the non linear reward makes STEEM harder to receive by votes and thus more valuable for those who receive   and own them. When selling STEEM which confer a squared voting power to anyone who acquires them, it's really enticing to buy those Steem instead of letting the competition have them. 

If my understanding is correct, non linear reward makes abuse harder than trying to play the game right. 

Dan isn't talking on top of his head. He is very coherent and very well thought out and people don't seem to give him enough credit for his observations and many are quick to dismiss him without rebutting him with factual observations. 

I'm not saying he's right or that I'm right but what I'm saying is that our point is not being address. 

If it's easier to abuse the platform than to create good content then that's what is going to happen and abusers will end up with the most STEEM overtime and abuse will permeate Steem.  This is a fundamental issue and can't be relegated to afterthoughts. 

Thank you for your interest in the matter. I haven't read your post yet but I will.