@goldendawne,

I am a strong advocate of Meritocracy.

The reason is simple: In any competitive system, of which Steemit is one, there must be some method of justifying the distribution of rewards.

Steemit has "Limited Resources," that is, it's Reward Pool CANNOT provide everyone with a "material reward" without dramatically increasing the Money Supply (printed money) and thereby triggering massive inflation ... and the collapse of the currency's price.

And so, there will inevitably be a hierarchy. All throughout Nature and other human-created systems, we see a phenomenon called the Pareto Principle. In effect, the square root of the number of participants will create half the outcomes and generate half the rewards. Hence, out of a group of 100 people, one would expect 10 SuperStars to generate 50% of the Great Content and receive 50% of the Payouts.

In more than three years, Steemit has not managed to create a single SuperStar.

Why not?

I would proffer that it's because the Curation System meant to identify and compensate such individuals is castrated. It is castrated by game-rigging that instead diverts compensation to one vote-buying/selling mechanism or another.

This is not sustainable. Steemit has "gotten away with murder" for this long because it had an effective monopoly ... no competition. THAT will change. When it does, there will be Hell to pay if reforms are not soon enacted.

Quill