I suppose since I have been tagged, I should proved some sort of response.
Let me begin by saying that Curie and Steem Guild have done an incredible job supporting my contributions to this site and I appreciate everything they have done for me, for every other author on that list and for all the new authors which join Steemit whom they support.
From my standpoint, I harbor no illusion this is my site. I do not hold any meaningful STEEM Power to make anything material from curation. I don't hold any meaningful STEEM Power to influence the reward pool distribution to support authors whose contributions to this site add real value. Moreover it is mathematically impossible , given the current vote power algorithm, I will ever acquire any meaningful STEEM Power to influence anything regardless of the quality or consistency of my contribution. Why should I or any author on that list truly give a shit? What would change if we did spend or time creating rant posts instead of continuing to create content of true value? I am not Don Quixote.
Truthfully, nauseated is not a strong enough adjective to describe how I feel about the endless posts bitching about draining reward pools and Steemit related rants all upvoted to nosebleed levels by proxies and bots. Not one of these posts adds value to the site. It will not bring new registered users into Steemit, it will not help increase demand for STEEM and each one adds greater damage to the reputation of Steemit on a Google search.
My feeling is anyone receiving substantive rewards for such posts while ranting about a broken system is by definition a hypocrite. Moreover, focusing every argument around the symptom of a problem (rewards earned) while refusing to address the true issue (vote power algorithm) means there is no real will to repair a seriously broken system. That being said, I am cautiously optimistic about the change to the comment vote power/reward pool distribution.
The calculus in my mind lately has been to reconsider this being my primary publishing vehicle. I think more and more quality authors (a subjective term) are making this same determination. The Steemit market has made the determination that zero value add rant posts hold a higher premium than higher value add posts.
We generally don't do farewell posts or rant posts - we simply produce less and vote with our feet and I think that's the point which is missed (or selectively ignored) in the middle of the Steemit reality show drama. It's a pointless endeavor. We come to an understanding the site is more interested in zero value rant posts than posts which could add enormous amounts of value from authors who were not part of the initial users. Were it not for Curie and Steem Guild, rewards would more closely reflect that.
I'd like to see the divisiveness end and a real conversation begin about how we make STEEM more valuable and how are we going to do a better job retaining those who create true value. The problem is not getting users at a viral rate. It's eliminating massive churn and retaining them.
I am under no illusion this reply will cause someone to think differently, inspire changes or even be read. History has already shown that to be the case. Moving forward, I will not be participating in the circle jerk of Steemit codependency, and instead focus my time and energy on the posts I choose to publish here and the ones I choose not to. My hope is at some point in the future a choice is made to address those core issues, but we shall see.