Maybe burnitallbernie is not the cause of the problem, but merely a symptom. Maybe all the things that happened on Steemit have contributed in a way to create what it is now, if it has created monsters or creatures with hard-to-understand motives, maybe that is exactly what the current system does.
Remove one bernie and another (maybe even darker one) will rise, do not doubt that for one second.
This is exactly, what I'm thinking about this issue. All the abuse and cyberbullying is the direct result of the way the rewards are distributed. It's mathematically guaranteed that this system is going to be abused. This is not a matter of behavior. It's a mathematical result of the current formula.
The method of reward distribution needs to be changed asap, because it results in $65 Million USD abuse in Steem investor funds in just a single year. It's a matter of time, before investors figure this out, the Steem price crashes, and Steemit implodes.
My solution proposal is to get rid of the reward distribution scheme altogether and let people choose the posts they want to tip and how much they want to tip. All with their own money; not distributing someone else's money. I've explained this in detail by a post called How to Solve the Reward Pool Abuse Problem Once and For All.
If there was enough stake operating to curb 'negative' behaviour then even the existing incentive model would work far better to curb the behaviour of accounts like burnie. The trouble is we have a benevolent whale that is not fulfilling it's potential.
@steemit probably won't. I'd think it wouldn't even agree of how it should fulfill it's potential or what its role actually is.
I agree, it looks like they will not. If they did, the community would be able to help figure out the best way to use it. We could do our best, then make adjustments as we learn more.