Not trying to start an argument but I am curious about what you think will happen if the power of the upvote is shifted more to minnows instead. This is my take.

Support for steem blockchain comes primarily from people who buy tokens, not people who earn tokens. That means that in order to become an investor in this system, you must invest your own money into it, otherwise you are just a player. Minnows do not invest money, but instead, invest their time to create content.

If there is a reduction in the amount of rewards for curators (there by shifting the rewards more towards the author side), then minnows have less of a reason to upvote to collect rewards, and more reason to create content for rewards. I don't see an issue with from a theoretical point of view but in practice, you have a point. The rich just get richer. But they are also the ones who spent a great deal of money investing in the platform. Theoretically, they should have the maximum return.

In practice, there are so few whales that their (the whales) behavior is counter productive to the theory. Part of this is the nature of bidbots, but more so then not, it is the barrier to entry and the lack of upvoting by whales of minnow content.

The two primary reasons for that is that minnows will statistically not buy steem in the amounts an investor will (otherwise minnows will not be minnows), so they can only rely on content creation for rewards. The obvious problem there is that most users (whales and minnows) create shit for content here to begin with.

So how will steemit dev team deal with it? Easy, its less about the platform of steemit, and more about maximizing steem blockchain to support real usage, and that means putting the power more favorably into the investors hands.

@hrissm, whats your take?