In every walk of life, most people want to be at the “top table.” Those at the top table are seen as “living it large” or as being “undeserving of their good future”, or as not doing enough to merit staying at the top, “resting on their laurels”.

Steemit is no different. Only Steemit has a very transparent top table.

Plans are afoot to curtail the gains of those at the top table. There is even talk of applying these plans retrospectively.

With this in mind, I thought it might be useful to take a closer look at some (not all) of the main protagonists at the Steemit Curation Rewards “Top Table.” I’ll try to take a dispassionate view on how things could be perceived and how things are likely to be.

Here is a list of the Top 10:

@ned
@dantheman
@berniesanders
@smooth
@itsascam
@blocktrades
@wang
@dan
@rainman
@steemed

(as per the “old” curation rules, more details here)

Meet the players

1. The Steemit Team Curators

@ned (aka Ned Scott)

These guys run the show but aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. If your post gets sprinkled with the magic dust of an upvote from @ned and/ or @dan, it’s certain to go stratospheric.

@dantheman (aka @dan aka Dan Larimer),

In his @dantheman persona, Mr Larimer is distributing upvotes like it’s going out of fashion! If you see your post go from $0- $30 in 2 seconds the likelihood is that @dantheman upvoted it.

The "perception problem" for the STEEMIT TEAM is that their voting actions may be seen as self-serving. They are deciding the rules of the game and they look its chief beneficiary. There is also the risk that good authors that they upvote turn into sycophants (or are at least perceived that way).

A more balanced view would to see these ‘big-hitter’ accounts less as “personal” accounts but as proxy accounts. They seek to act in ways that promote the values of the platform. It is the values they promote that will ultimately decide if Steemit is a success or not.

2. Diligent ‘Miner’ Curators

These guys are actually actively engaged in the site, and are playing the game in a way most would accept it should be played.

@smooth

If you've ever come across @smooth in the Bitcointalk forum or on slack, you'll realise he (or they? I refuse to believe he is one person!) is a posting tour de force. Whether you agree or disagree with his views, it’s difficult not to respect them. @smooth has applied himself to Steemit with typical gusto.

@berniesanders

I’d describe @berniesanders as a silent assassin, picking off good content in his own style and at his own speed. You won’t see many posts or comments from this frontrunner. However if you come across a really good post or insightful comment, do not be surprise to if @berniesanders has upvoted it.

@rainman

@rainman similar to @berniesanders is a silent “picker-offer.” Seems like a good egg and is prepared to forego Rewards earned under the current Curation Rewards model in favour for a more flatten distribution.

@blocktrades

@blocktrades appears to be an Exchange and that is also Diligent Curator. You can only see its influence on the platform growing with time.

The "perception problem" faced by these "Diligent curators" is that they could be seen as having acquired their “rank” through having the good fortune of mining Steem early. They can be seen as having a disproportionate ‘head start’ on other Curators. Now Steemit is allowing them to compound their good fortune through voting.

A more balanced view would be to look at these guys as VC investors. For every “Steemit” they find, there are probably 10 or 20 coins they mine for little or no reward or at a loss. Also what their healthy wallets do not show is their initial and on-going outlay.

They have also locked their capital into Steem power for two years. That sort of long term commitment is almost an anathema to your average miner.

3. Bot ‘Miner’ Curators

I don’t think I’m going out on too far of a limb to suggest that @itascam (aka @steemed) and @wang run bots. Bot Curators are painted as the villains of the piece. Some believe using automated bots is against the spirit of Steemit. Unjustly so in my view.

@itsascam (unfortunate moniker!)

@itsascam makes no secret of the fact that he/ they curate based on the author and he uses a bot to do so. He even advertises that good content providers make themselves known so he can choose whether to add them to his bot.

@wang

@wang is a bot machine! I guess I should be declaring a conflict of interest (I think!) as @wang even has a bot on me! No surprise, @wang appears to upvote everything that moves! I even suspect @wang has a bot that auto-comments on # introduceyourself posts. Lots going on with this account, however I hesitate to speculate any further than that...

The "perception problem" that Bot Curators are faced with the same as those for the Diligent Curators. In addition, these guys are seen taking short cuts to earning rewards. They are voting on posts before they have read them and before anyone else, thereby “cheating” “honest curators” out of the opportunity of discovering content first.

A more balanced view would be to see Bot Curators as simply having a different curation model. Whilst some vote by post, they simply vote based on the author reputation. They need to go through a similar due diligence to ensure they are constantly selecting the optimum blend of authors. As the site grows, this approach will become more competitive and more difficult to maintain.

Conclusion

Message to “the top table”

Whatever the outcome of the Curation Rewards debate, the top table are still in for a massive windfall on 4th July. With great power comes great responsibility. There is nothing to stop the “top table” from spending their Curation Rewards how they see fit… fast cars, drugs, loose women… or all three whilst drowning in a perpetual pool of Steem power rewards! However re-investing a significant portion of these Rewards into the platform may pay bigger dividends in the long run.

Message to everyone else.

Absence from the top table can easily turn envious eyes egalitarian. Don’t fret, as I believe in time the Steemit “top table” will resemble more of a “meritocracy” that is based on posting and curation efforts. I think part of the issue is that we seem a long way. However I’m confident that it’s closer than we realise. After July 4th you will be in the game for real and your influence will be felt more keenly.

In the future the ”top table” will likely comprise of some of a mix of great authors and curators, miners and investors. But rest assured, however people got there, everyone at the top table will be inherently incentivised to see Steemit succeed. That means ensuring the platform is fair and caters for all that add value to it. What you put in, will be what you get out.

Onwards and upwords!