@pfunk I can tell you put quality time, effort, and skill into your photography and posts.
Ignoring the crude expressions of the matrixdweller, I think the question I'm having from the conversation here is whether or not there is a flaw in the system.
I assume the goal is for Steemit to grow and grow. For that goal to succeed I would imagine that there needs to be a way for the distribution of rewards to be more accessible for quality posts from people unseen by the whales. Or another way to put it, more equalizing of the upvote power so the few do not have the massive amount of power. That will decrease any potential of abuse of power, and it will empower and inspire the newcomers and those regular contributors of quality content who are not whales.
Is Steemit sustainable long-term, without a more equalizing power and reward distribution?
Thank you. What's amusing is the "flaw" in the system that is mentioned is actually its protection against large staked accounts only voting for themselves. Voting shares are squared so that a single largely staked account voting for himself (and not getting other large votes) will get less than if voting on worthwhile posts along with other large amounts of voting shares.
So this troll has it backwards, but we already know he didn't make this post to critique Steem, just as retaliation specifically against me.