People who succeed in a system based on voting will often if not usually have some in-built source of voting support. It is absurd to suggest otherwise.
to me this answer you gave to @kevinwong (about what kind of content will attract a userbase and is therefore desirable) seems to suggest otherwise.
Is it something that new users coming to the platform can reasonably emulate, and have an expectation of success, or offers some other mode of participation that is open to them?
Also, wasn't that a good part of your problem with krnel trivium posts -- guaranteed votes from his whale friends put him at the top of the payout list every day?
My voting generally reflects that and I never voted for @ozchartart until Papa Dan came down from the mountain to tell the rest of the stakeholders we are doing it wrong. I consider that more harmful than just about anything else that can ever happen, including @ozchartart making some money instead of other posters (at ultimately the identical net cost to stakeholders)
It nevertheless doesn't change the fact that your suggestion of the notion of @ozchartart being a random poster who got lucky is a straw man. I don't believe anyone has suggested it.
The closest might be my suggestion that he is good at networking and got votes that way (itself pure speculation), which is still not being a random poster who got lucky.
In part, and as I said my voting generally reflects it, but also the small to nonexistent target market for the content itself as I said at the time. I've explicitly contrasted that with @ozchartart in fact. Whatever I think of or about @ozchartart's content (generally little in either case), I recognize that trading and charting is something that is proven to potentially attract an audience and a community of significant size. I don't know if @ozchartart is the one to do that, but his topic is at least viable.