My point is that those are the things that need to be worked on. It sounds like HF20 just further obfuscates things. New users get virtually nothing from curation, but if I create a post or comment, at least I know that I can get something by an immediate upvote. Now I don't think it should be even possible to upvote yourself as that is a clear conflict of interest, similar to paying for votes. I realize that there are all sorts of game theoretic reasons for the way the algorithm is set up, but these are necessary only because of certain other design choices. I also realize that doing this right is hard, but I always use StackExchange as a counterexample to Steem where, despite no reward pool and no blockchain, the content quality is extremely high. There is also a certain psychological aspect here. If new users don't feel that Steem is fair, or feel that it is too complex, they are unlikely to continue. I suspect this has a lot to do with the low retention rate. Setting up rules that make steem essentially the equivalent in complexity of CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) doesn't seem like a very good recipe for success. For me, the main incentive to be here is not because of what steem is now, because it seems deeply flawed, but rather what it (or some other fork) might become. But I'm a geek when it comes to these things, not a normal facebook-type user.