If only they would heed, it would be better for us all. Reducing their posts a day, or better still, voting others would surely help a lot. I have seen lot of people with massive voting power, sharing it round, not because they don't self upvote, but they spread it as much as they do self upvote. Hoarding it all to oneself is doing damage to the ecosystem. I respect the fact they laboured to get there, Yes, but every little bit for the ecosystem that has given so much to You, doesn't hurt either. I hope they listen and help us all. Well done.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
How? It would remove the incentive to fix the problem that @haejin demonstrates is in the code.
I strongly disagree, and hope @haejin never changes course as long as the code remains designed to deliver the vast majority of rewards to those accounts that already have the most money in them.
If @haejin doesn't force them to change the code so that rewards are more fairly distributed, nothing will. If @haejin backs down, the demonstration of the inequitable distribution will no longer be visible. That won't fix the code. It will simply make the inequitable distribution harder to spot.
That would reduce the pressure on Stinc and the witnesses to actually fix the problem.
I actually see that those trying to convince @haejin to make the system look like it's fair as an attempt to maintain the status quo--which is concentrating rewards at an accelerating pace in the accounts of those with the most SP, and continually shrinking the rewards shared by the minnows.
That is the bad thing for Steemit, Steem, and all the minnows.