In general, "yes."

In spite of what I consider some dubious execution, the experiment showed that most people were more enthusiastic about their participation with the "no whale votes" in effect. I could see my votes have more effect (even if it was just 3 cents instead of NO cents!), so it felt like my reading and commenting actually meant something; had a value.

On a parallel topic, I still have reservations on the matter of urgency. I would like to see some further consideration of the relative weight of "bot votes" vs. actual human curation. As I am not a developer, I don't have a good sense of the implementation issues... but I struggle with the idea that a bot-- which, after all, does little more than confirm that the "content EXISTS" should carry the same relative influence as a human being actually reading a post, upvoting it, and perhaps leaving an engaging comment.

Whereas I have no argument with the existence of bots-- per se-- and believe they have a definite function (flagging spam, copying, abuse, trolling and so on), maybe it should be considered to have a measure where a bot can never vote with more than 5% or 10% voting power, to give more weight to a human voting at 100%. Just a thought... based on the premise that we are trying to build a COMMUNITY... and that's about people, not about automation.