I don't understand the math beneath all of this, but there is one point I can't see my way to agreeing with: that one person's vote ought to count more than another's - except on the basis of his reputation/engagement/votes received. I observed that it is impossible to publish something and gain any reward, while someone with a certain 2 or three supporters publishes total numpty content and gets immediate rewards. If that wasn't the case, i would never have used a bot. If there were no need for an equalizer, there would be no equalizers.. enter the bid-bots, selling of resteems, the pathetic discord and other circle jerking. I don't know, I may be wrong but I think the only way from here is for bid-bots to reveal their approach so people can use the services they consider to be ethical.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"but there is one point I can't see my way to agreeing with: that one person's vote ought to count more than another's"
Well, Communism is that way, then ---->
I don't think you (mean to be) advocating for neutering the concept of stake, but this is literally the defining feature of Steem. One person's vote will always count more than another's.
I know it as direct democracy. Call it what you like, but I don't believe that an elite ought to determine what a community eventually becomes.