Thank you for taking time to respond to my complaints.

I would still like to reverse that hardfork and alter the behavior of the misbehavers, but that is just me.

The problem still remains that 10 out of 27k+ voters give out 30% of the reward pool, and I don't see anyway to alter their giving it to authors that they approve of, it seems unlikely to get folks to support speech they disagree with, on the whole.

Optimally we would find a median and allow the bottom to have more influence while we want more bottom folks to join, and the top to have more influence when we want more investors.
This would require that some folks refrain from voting for the short term.

Currently all the incentives are doing is driving the little guys out, annoying the hodl'ers, and enriching the already rich.
Hardly a prescription towards mass adoption.

I would oppose ending the 30 minute window, otherwise folks will just stake out the new posts, at least with it there is the opportunity for folks to get ahead of the bots.

As it stands we can only wait for the reality to make it through the short term greed, long term we are better off with more users, imo.

Games have to have rules, otherwise there is no game.

When the top was getting most of the curation awards, were they also getting most of the author rewards?
If author rewards were larger before the hf, I say we go back.

As for the vote selling bots, and the gangs that gang up to reward the popular among them, put me down as waiting for the masses to catch on to the reality and their demise.

When whales vote the minnows have little reason to be here.
Before delegation got going my vote moved the dial much more.