Those pushing for more linear rewards are removing the need for a quorum and the end result is the pathological behavior displayed by some whales will play out on a wider scale.

So are you in favor of keeping the n^2 algorithm? There was a pretty wide consensus for moving the algorithm closer to linear than superlinear. I don't agree with full linearity, but I also think that n^2 is too much and won't exactly scale well if STEEM/Steemit should ever gain mass adoption - or at least more widespread adoption.

And I also think that there are far too many people who expect popularity to not yield corresponding results. This is social media, after all. Every blogger isn't going to be "popular" and every blogger isn't going to, nor should they expect to earn the same amount of rewards as other bloggers, especially the popular ones. I don't agree with "flagging because of disagreement on rewards" or "over-rewarding." I think that flies in the face of the entire concept of "popularity." Others are certainly free to flag as they choose, I just choose not to do that.

Inconsistency of flagging is perhaps the worst possible outcome.

I'm not sure if that's true. I think the worst outcome would be targeted flagging of certain users based on bad concepts of "fairness." It isn't necessarily inconsistency - it's the idea that rewards should be reduced simply because other users aren't earning enough. What is "enough" and how should each individual voter be distributing rewards to everyone who is not earning "enough" for their content? Isn't that the entire purpose of the voting mechanisms in the first place?

In a stake-based system, the rewards are distributed according to stake. If a post earns or doesn't earn, it's mostly due to the fact that voters have decided that your content is or is not subjectively "good" and deserving of the rewards that they can allocate. (I acknowledge bots - but this is an argument based on the underlying theory of the system.) Those with the most stake or "investment" in the system are the ones with the most weight to decide how it should be moved forward. Was this not what the code was designed for? To allow those with the largest investments to have the most influence on which content to support and how to move the platform forward?

I have stated many times that distribution for the sake of distribution is a failed strategy. (Which is why I'm not a fan of the guilds that are designed to do that.) If this platform is meant to be used for a UBI, then change the code and make it so. If it's to be used for social media and popular content, then make the code reflect that. But actual investors need to know so that they can choose whether or not they want to buy or sell their STEEM. Constantly shaving incentives from investors won't encourage more investment. Trying to turn the platform into a UBI strategy - at the expense of the actual investors - won't work.

There is the code and there is the fact that this is still social media. The social media "rules" still apply to users and content just as much as the voting algorithms do.

And I would like to add, for anyone who reads this:

If a whale flags your post, take the issue up with them, not the users (or one specific user) that happen to be upvoted by them. Trolling and spamming other people's posts or personally attacking the other users because you received a flag is a childish response.