RE: SteemFest²: Bridging the Gap Between Perception and Reality
You mention at lot of valid concerns here, but I also think you're mentioning an aspect of reality that human beings haven't developed a workaround for yet. It's kind of like saying predators still hunt prey. It's part of nature that those who have want more. We just happened to notice a big difference between those who have $10 and gain $0.10 and those who have $1,000,000 and gain $10,000. The math may be the same, but it feels different. Also, whoever has money can more easily make more money. Again, no way around this unless we enforce systems which will ultimately cause investors to leave and destroy the value in the platform. Generosity can't be demanded. It has to be learned and appreciated through life experience. There are more options than buying up votes, but building relationships with influential people and providing value can't be avoided.
If you have suggestions on how things could be improved, I'm listening. A lot of study of game theory went into this platform and continues to drive its economics. If we ignore that and suggest changes without understanding, we can actually threaten what we have here.
As always sir @lukestokes, you always have a good point. If all these whales have the same heart as yours, lots of people will adore steemit. Anyway, you asked for suggestions. Could it be possible to change the system by giving equal value for all the members irregardless of its stake? I think not because the platform might lose its value because the rich will go away. The HF19 which gives minnows more power was a good idea, but unfortunately, the same thing happens to all the whales, their value had increase tremendously. In effect, it was the same, nothing changes but the fact that SP drains fast.
A year ago, there was this experimentation headed by few huge whales in the platform. An experiment that no whales will be allowed to vote giving minnows it's value. Was that successful? Everyday there is 50,000 rewards that will be distributed. Is it true that if it happens that only 1 person made a vote on that day, that 50k will be value of his vote? If that's the case, what do you think about the idea of giving a day intended only for minnows to vote (no other people can vote but minnows)? There are seven days in a week, if 2 days will be given to all the minnows for us to vote and be voted by the same minnows and share the 50,000 rewards among those who voted, what do you think will happen. For 5 days whales will monopolized the rewards and 2 days will be for the active minnows.
The minnows would most likely self-vote, right? As those minnows become whales, would they act any differently than current whales? By that, I mean it may not be the size of someone's wallet that matters but who they are as a person. We'd probably see the same level of greed and generosity in both minnows and whales. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see more generosity in whales because they mostly understand how benefitting others increases your own wealth. Whales, to me, aren't immediately bad by default. If their votes and actions are overly selfish, I can see that's not helpful. But, could it just be a matter of perspective? If I get one person to give me $1 for an exchange of value is that fundamentally different than getting a million people to do it?
A day without whales sounds quite interesting, but I'm not sure it would effectively solve the concerns you have.