I see what you're saying, and I agree with this:
Without incentive for the creation of new and diverse content, it will not simply appear of its own volition and continue to be produced without recognition.
I've seen new users (one of whom was my mom!) come to the site and become discouraged by the lack of attention paid to some excellent and completely unique posts. I respect @ats-david's decision to disseminate the information.
However, I don't mean something figurative or metaphorical when I say "free market." I mean that we are all free to NOT support things we don't like, to make deals or alliances with other users, and to build on Steem in ways that create more legit reasons to buy and sell the tokens. If I were a brand new user of Steemit right now, I'd market and advertise my posts and go to @robinhoodwhale, @coinbitgold and her academic post initiative, or someone who promotes and features new content.
If this is really as flawed as a government monopoly, maybe it's time to make big changes! It's always been centralized, so what do you expect? The whales are mainly the initial investors.
@edgeland thanks for the mention. Appreciate it for the recognition. As much as i would like to agree with you, the journey to promote new science and academia writers has been difficult because I do not have much of an influence at steemit. And upvotes on my content come from whales who maybe think i have good content or who think it is good to promote good science writers. And i am grateful to them for for believing in me.
I have a few comments on this post:
Even if evil whales are ousted, can we be confident that there will be no new evil whales in this anarchic system in the future ?
Let's admit that in this current system, the voting algorithm is easy to game for whales.
I respect @ats-david for posting this and giving this information to all users. But on the other hand, is it really good to flash "dirty laundry" publicly? IMO, it is not good for the steem prices and investors confidence......