I am exploring the incentive system and seeing how it breaks. Not sure HF19 has it right. I've been actively reading and highlighting articles that point out its weaknesses. Maybe it will adjust and there will be an equilibrium.

But I think one has to respond to incentives as they're designed to a certain degree. I am not sure you can call any use of the existing system as "reward pools rape" or anything like that. If there's a systemic problem, we have to address it at the level of the system, not pretend it doesn't exist. Being able to upvote my comments to a high level is not the result of how I was born --> it was the result of me having earned a lot of Steem writing, curating, and commenting and also having bought with fresh money a lot of Steem, more of the latter than probably 99% of Steemians. It's how the system works and understanding the system and how it works in general and how it works for me is literally why I have bought Steem every time I have done so. And I'll probably show up in the transfer list as a large buyer of Steem in the last week on the list you compile --> in part because I think this HF19 is a more participatory iteration of the Steem platform and it gets us closer to great. I'd be interested to see who has net received more Steem from exchanges in Steem's history than my account. I bet it is few.

From my own POV, economic incentive wise, posting/commenting 50x day for $5 isn't worth my time, which is pretty dear. That is how much I could upvote a comment or post before. For $50+, commenting becomes time I can justify spending. Although not totally because I have a fulltime demanding non-crypto job -- I do a lot of Steeming on my phone, and it's still pretty brutal to use. At the current rates, I can be more more active and participatory. Maybe I am being overpaid for my time and attention and that will be addressed in a future fork. We'll see. But in the mean time my participate rate has increased.

I haven't done a post on this, but maybe I will repurpose this comment as a post. I generally prefer to experiment and understand systems on my own rather than really get involved in the politics of a system because 1) politics is boring 2) my time/attention is scarce 3) I'm interested in getting to a better tech, more than making money 4) I have not only a full-time job, but a very broad digital asset portfolio 5) most other people don't put in the time to properly understand things and get to the appropriate level of context to make informed decisions on things.

A good example of time scarcity/time well spent/time bad spend is with the recent ICOs, even the inanity of the EOS money grab -- I see many people being stupid about it and uninformed and making bad long term decisions without adequate research or understanding. Or with the GDAX flash crash -- people trading crypto on margin are insane and I say as much. I could spend a fulltime job worth of time just publishing due diligence on ICOs and advice to crypto traders and it would be a waste of time I don't have to help people who won't be helped or listen. Instead, I use soft power, soft influence, and pick my spots and make them count either behind the scenes or in front of the scenes. Here's an example of what I wrote on Tezos after engaging with the team there and uncovering many red flags. That is going to be the biggest ICO ever and it's a terrible deal but I put some work into it and have let it sit. That comment is very influential. I stick to shadows for the most part, understanding and being influential in softer, less visible ways.

Not sure if I lost the plot there or not!