I second bernie, stinc intentionally facilitated self voting knowing that it would concentrate rewards in the large accounts at the expense of the little accounts.
Now they encourage pay for play because they want to make the large stakeholders happy at the expense of everybody else.
Ned even acknowledges that linear rewards was a mistake and that superlinear rewards will have to come back.

We had an experiment running that could've made the game interesting for minnows, but instead stinc hurried up and changed the curve to linear before the truth could be known by the majority of us.
That truth being that the largest accounts have to stay out of the rewards pool if we hope to attract the masses.
Stinc has clearly demonstrated that they dont care about mass adoption, only rewarding early investors and the ninja miners.

They round down votes less than .02sbd, all those with less than 150sp have been playing a fool's game because their votes get rounded down. This just recently came to light, but has been the rule from the beginning.

I'm just a cranky poor person, so if you want an alternative viewpoint talk to @smooth, him and @abit were running the experiment that downvoted the greedy whales in order to help the minnows, he will give you straight info, imo, from one of the ninja miners.
If money equals credibility then @ats-david should get a voice, too. He has been here since early on and has paid for his stake.
@ned's credibility may be intact with those favored by early stakeholders, but those not so favored, that know the math, may have a different opinion.
I know i do.