I'm stuck in a moral dilemma.
I think @dollarvigilante is only popular because he got VIP status with the founders before he even arrived. And when whales upvote, everyone else follows.
And I want to follow. It's that curation reward, you see. I can earn as well. But by doing that, the author, who's post I dislike, will also get a reward.
An 82-word introduction is not work $15,000 no matter who you are.
Killary Clinton makes about $15,000 per minute for her speeches to Goldman Sachs and all the other cronies. Which is actually more valuable to humanity?
To be fair neither is more valuable... All content is worth only what the people who consume that content deem it to be worth.
What you bring to Steemit is valuable to Steemit, and what Hillary Clinton brings to Goldman Sachs is valuable to them.
I personally enjoy some of the content you produce, but I certainly wouldn't pay you $15000 for it.
Even if you upvote him "you" are not paying him $15,000. In fact "you" are not paying him a single penny. I don't think that you understand this paradigm yet.
What about her husband Kill Clinton? - I think he makes even more (which is strange because I think he is probably less evil than her and it normally scales with villainy).
You're right... the 82 words are not worth $15k. Nobody could argue that. Now let's ask the other question... what value is Jeff's presence on Steemit worth to the larger Steemit ecosystem? Probably way more than $15k if you are honest. So... Jeff got ripped off. His endorsement and the audience that follows him is worth far more.
In that context, would you not agree fully?