I was never disputing that there was no 'awesome content' from David (though I can't rate politics high on everyone's awesome radar - no matter how simplified). I was pointing out that the same does not apply if you DON'T already have the name.

There are countless posters here who are walking away because their awesome content just isn't recognized. @erh.germany for instance. She wrote a powerful piece on [her perspective of steemit](https://steemit.com/steem/@erh.germany/enter-a-mermaid-s-mind-an-observation-of-the-steemit-system) which only made a few dollars. (There is 2 days remaining if you care to read it.. and, as a stakeholder.. reward it).

It's subjective what awesome content is - so it's not king - plus it's not automatically recognized. Also to be realistic, I do agree with your 3rd rule: 'explanation that lay-people can understand', does get processed easier. Thus a reader feels compelled to reward. The level of @erh.germany's word usage is probably way higher than most would comprehend. Many may find it overwhelming. It's conforms to your rule 1 though: High production value.

This is also why elsewhere I suggested that steemit and users would benefit from a section for: Intellectuals and Professionals. Rather than just the tag method. Obviously like how Reddit does it. The option for communities to exists within the greater community. This grows niches and overall the entire platform.

I disagree with this though:
>Had he just posted an image of himself, Steemians would have seen through it as just a shameless attempt to make some extra cash. The very fact that you appreciate his potential value after watching his content disproves your point.

@dollarvigilante himself admitted that his intro here was lacking substance. Yet it blew up. I actually don't care for David's content after watching a few videos. They are much too simplified and he has a clear bias. I still see him as positive though, for his ability to attract more users to the platform.