RE: No use buying BCH.
The problem of properly rewarding high-quality content can - or even should - be solved by the "whales": they could found a "manual high-quality curation fund", rewarding only top-quality posts. Such a fund could also be created by a big amount of people, or as an obligatory "sponsorship" where a small percentage of all rewards on the platform automatically is put into the fund.
On the one hand there is nothing wrong with a small minority of users owning the vast majority of steem capital. That represents real-life wealth distribution quite well. Yet what's different on steem as compared to "the real world" is that wealthy people and corporations in "the real world" are constantly on the look for hiring real talent. That's a primary principle driving the economy upwards.
Ah well, as I am already behind the computerscreen again... :-)
There are several ways to make quality posts get a stronger position. Better rewarded and so on. To make a difference.
The way a small group got a majority in Steem Power was because of the exponential reward system. Very crooked from my point of view. Much of the ever to be released Steem was handed out that way. That only changed a short while ago to linear, 1 SP = 1 Vote. It gave a positive boost to many.
And personally I do not subscribe to that economical paradigm you describe. But I am always open to an exchange of thoughts. For another time.
On a side note, I stopped using SteemIt chat a long time ago. But I send you an invite for our _Nederlandstalige_ group at Telegram there.
Have a great weekend.
Seriously? Did it work like that in the past on curation rewards?
So if I understand you correctly... suppose there was a post, which got rewarded $10,- and there were 4 curators for it: a) $5,- b) $2,- c) $2,- d) $1,- ...
then the rewards given out were distributed quadratically based on the proportion of adding to the pool
so:
5^2 + 2^2 + 2^2 + 1^2 = 25 + 4 + 4 + 1 = 30 "shares"
Is this correct @oaldamster?
Basicly it came down to: Steem Power x Steem Power = Vote Weight. With that the reward pool would bet devided. And because half of the Steem, ever to be issued, was handed out in about a year time, with this exponential voting system, there were a lot that considered this quite unfair. It was extremely biased towards account with very high amounts of SP. Making them even getting more SP faster and in big numbers.
Then some of the more wealthy Steem accounts decided to take action and push for 1 Steem Power - 1 Vote Weight. As linear was to be considered to be more fair, although not everybody seemed to understand their actions at the time. Looking back they did a good job.
Since then we have the linear voting weight system. Considered to be more fair. (The Curator - Poster division is about 20-80% of the potential payout, if I remember correctly.)
Will have a look into that another time, currently have other things on my schedule. Steem took me away from it for a bit too long. :-)
Have a good weekend!