“All fishes are equal, but some
Fishes are more equal than others.”

Orwellian-styled "Fish-farm" a la SteemIt
(source)

Recently I've been reading very good and interesting post by @kevinwong
I've found it useful and resteemed it to let other people find and read it. Also I've started making my own reply there, to add my 2 cents to that discussion with many good points by many experienced Steemians. But as it happens sometimes, I've got too inspired in the process and my reply became too lengthy for just a simple comment.

Therefore I've decided to go an and make it into my own blog post, corresponding with things discussed there. although to be honest, I still didn't have enough time to read ALL the comments and replies there - but I certainly will, it IS worth it! I wish I could quote here more and bigger chunks from comments in discussion there (especially by @trafalgar) - but that would increase the size of this post and also there is no point to copy-paste entire conversation, better to read it WHOLE there - it truly WORTH it! that's why I've Resteemed it and also provided Links to it in this my post.

Let me share my thoughts on the subject matter of "Steem's Economic Flaw", "content quality indifferent economic system", "good" or "manual" curation, "vote-farming", etc.

RE "self-voting" or "selling votes" - I think have to add that perhaps for those whose "vote" value isn't much anyway it won't help much either way. the main point as I see it: whole system (or business / economic model) currently works in such as way as to "encourage" people to .... INVEST into Steem. This point somehow is missing in that mentioned article. (Ctrl+F search gave only 1 single result in your main text: "investor-types")

"Votes-farming" or "harvesting" or "milking" or whatever we call that - is actually about MAKING MONEY. those people who realizes that without investing they have to struggle (and perhaps eventually give up), IF they can afford it - do so. then it is only natural that they focus mostly or only on their ROI, i.e. become "content indifferent"

SteemIt is an INVESTMENT Platform de facto! (well, STEEM won't have value without SteemIt, thus not necessary to use word STEEM separately or additionally) As well as sort of clever Lending platform or even perhaps some "long-term HYIP. and as long as it remains such - it will condition people into behaving that way. despite the proper assessment: "Content indifferent behavior is the bane of this system"
Because as long as they are being made to Invest, and see that those who does Invest get better results - their focus / interest / concern / care would still be on their ROI first of all.

I think there is something fundamental missing here, if we are talking about "Economics". there is Supply and Demand, Product and Consumers (accordingly those who produce / provide / supply / sell product, then usually some likely middlemen and finally end-consumers ) they have DIFFERENT focal points! i.e. interests / attention focus. Consumers are those who drive the Demand, as well as able and willing to PAY for it! while production, logistics, delivery etc - doesn't concern them at all. that is what all those other people do who facilitate the ultimate result of Consumer's getting the desired Product (or service).

Here though, call it "social media" or whatever (aha, yeah - "Ecosystem", right! :D) - all of them at piled up together: Consumers and "Providers" / facilitators (all those who helps to make it happen) It is actually pretty simple: ONLY Consumers of the Product (in this case "Content") are eager to get it, also usually can afford it and willing to pay for its quality. Accordingly are directly concerned (as antonym to "indifferent") to evaluate it (= "curate" its quality).

Let's put it more bluntly: they are NOT interested to produce it (i.e. "generate Content") nor even interested how it is being produced by whoever others! they only want to get it and are willing and capable to PAY for it! (and those who can afford more - expect better quality naturally)

While ALL others, "Providers" / facilitators, mostly are NOT interested to get the Product and especially to PAY for it! they are rather interested to SUPPLY that Product and MAKE MONEY from that Demand. (as well as all related stuff: driving up that Demand aka marketing, convincing Consumers to buy / pay more, etc)

Coming back to this particular case of practical SteemIt platform:

It's a BIG MISTAKE or serious flaw to expect that ALL people involved in it would be equally interested in "Content Generating" !!!

In fact many (or most) are even simply unable to. although they may be able and willing to PAY for a good Content. while others (perhaps quite few) who are good at generating quality Content - are neither good Consumers of it nor salesmen. it is fair to say that basically mainly or ONLY these 2 types of people are actually interested in the Quality of Content and accordingly in so called "Curation" of it! Because Consumers are those who actually enjoy reading it and Creators because they enjoy the process of Creating it AND get recognition, fame, appreciation, aesthetic satisfaction, whatever else AND of course material (financial / monetary) gain / incentives.

Now, apart from Consumers of Content and Creators of Content - in between there are SO MANY others! all of them are actually NOT interested neither in Generating nor in Consuming the Content! (although some may have relative interest, but kind of "by the way") also they often simply can't Create (especially good quality) and /or can't afford to pay for it. (although some may be relatively able / willing to) their main or only interest is: how to PROFIT from this whole process of PROVIDING the Product (Content) from Creators to Consumers. Therefore their "curation" is NOT focused on the quality of Content - they are interested on their ROI, i.e. on capitalizing on and profiting from this "Supply-Demand" relations.

So, it comes to the main point: the current existing SteemIt model where :

• MOST of participants are NOT interested neither in Creating Content (i.e. authorship) nor in "Consuming" it, i.e. actually reading it or even bother to click to open at all (= "indifferent curation" or "upvoting for Earning") - but ONLY in Profiting from the exploiting the System's flaws;

• Content Creators are expected to de facto PAY (be it in RC or whatever) for posting, editing, discussing their Content (= Product) - while at the same time are FORCED to COMPETE with tons of JUNK or AVERAGE stuff, i.e. "routine daily posting of BORING stuff just for the sake of keep posting";

• Consumers of Content, all those who come here to really search for GOOD stuff, to really READ it, evaluate, RELISH / CHERISH, discuss, genuinely Manually Curate and can afford to "PAY for quality Product", i.e. fairly reward authors of Good Content with what they actually deserve for their sincere efforts, time, energy etc. - most probably such people here are very few;

AND

• ALL of these totally DIFFERENT categories of people, with DIFFERENT interests, motives, focus of attention, skills, abilities and most importantly: Steem Power = that banal "Estimated Account Value", in USD (LOL! not in TALENT or ABILITY value), which finally affects the EARNING of anyone, no matter of their such differences. so, ALL of them in fact are just directly or indirectly "inspired" or "advised" (or forced by freaking competition) to INVEST into this de facto Investment Platform!!! (i.e. to BUY more STEEM and de facto LEND it into platform, aka "Power Up") just to be able to do more effectively (i.e. achieve better results) all those DIFFERENT actions they all came here for!

This whole sophisticated clever de facto Investment System or sort of long-term HYIP (or Lending Platform) which mixes up all those DIFFERENT people with totally different interests, piles them up all together and urges to BUY STEEM and then PAY for each and every action (by "Resource Credits", yeah - which actually differ substantially according to SP), while at the same time expect them ALL to "Generate Content"... :D
From such system one can not possibly expect any actual CHANGE in attitudes of participants!

It rather reminds me some talk-show of George Carlin (about "American Dream" as I recall), where he says:

"The table is tilted, folks,
The game is rigged!"

In other words, the whole business model or economic system has this Fundamental Flaw (unless it is purposeful? then it is not a flaw but some genius trick): it is made in such a way as to make all to believe that EVERYONE must be both Creator and Consumer of the Content, never mind their skills, interests, abilities! while actually EVERYONE is expected to INVEST! and latest changes, i.e. de facto COSTS in RC - in reality make people to realize that urge more astutely! because to be able to do MORE of both, Create and Consume (i.e. curate / upvote) - one ultimately faces the need to BUY more STEEM ! (however then not simply HODL it in one's own wallet till better revenues - but "Power Up" = Lend it into System! with expectations to get dividends / commissions from those de facto "Stakes", as Stake-holders would)

As long as the whole System remains as it is, de facto INVESTMENT Platform - there is no point of talking about how to change people's attitudes, fight "vote farming", bot-bidding, whatever else. Simply because people are DIFFERENT! They here for their own reasons and purposes, with different skills, abilities, capacities ("wallet sizes"). Therefore their Attention Focus is different, even though ALL of them are more or less same in one thing: they expecting to EARN! (perhaps except very few whales etc, who are let's say less worry about it) In other words, they have DIFFERENT approach to the ways or devices of how to Earn.

Thus to mix them up all together into one same category of kinda Frankenstein-like morph of "Creator-Consumer-Reseller" of Content, i.e. "ALL-in-one" type - it is completely irrational.

That's what causes the whole confusion: we can NOT be serious in expecting that MAJORITY of de facto INVESTORS (because they have figured it out: that system is made so), be they small or big (aka various "species" of aquatics LOL), would stop being "Content Indifferent" and start actually "giving sh1t" about "doing it as everyone else", i.e. GENUINE Good Content Generation and "Manual Curation".

Let's be realistic: there is no such thing as "everyone else"! it is actually a fallacy of "hasty generalization". In fact, MOST of people are interested only in EARNING, preferably ASAP and ideally for FREE (= not making much or any efforts at all) and try to exploit the system for that gain. Those who're more keen and successful in figuring out the System's "Flaws" (or rather intentional arrangements?) - prosper; others more or less becoming .... a "fodder for a bigger fishes". :D (or a plankton)

BTW, come to think of it: actual genuine Consumers of Content (researchers for and curators of Good quality Content) may not even be present here at all! After all, there are SO MANY other places, from Mainstream Media to "traditional social networks" where they can find ANY Content they like for FREE! otherwise can afford to BUY / pay for any GOOD Content they like or want. so why bother at all to come here on SteemIt? where they have to COMPETE with "vote bots" and "upvote trails" (which are "content indifferent") for "curation" of average quality or low quality Content. it is simply not worth their time and money! Unless they rather come for Earning / Profiting purpose - NOT for Consuming of Good Content.

The Conclusion is: don't expect to change those who are "Content indifferent". because they are simply SHREWD and pragmatic: they figured out the it is SYSTEM that made in such a way, i.e. to make them behave so - and are simply trying to be or are being SUCCESSFUL in that! which they can't seriously be blamed for, if at all.

As @trafalgar put it:

With linear and 25% curation, we have a system that rewards content indifferent voting behavior 4x more than good voting behavior that somewhat reflects content quality. This leads to a complete failure of a content discovery and rewards platform which is our initial mission.

Although personally I doubt it very much that his idea of merely changing the algorithm of rewarding system would really be a solution (from linear to other): IMO as long as ALL are mixed up together into one same Category ("All-in-One", Creator-Consumer-Reseller) there will always be one or other flaws to be exploited; and as long as SteemIt remains de facto INVESTMENT Platform. In other words: should not mix business (= Investment) with leisure / pleasure / hobby / "social network"! That's what makes whole system fail.

Even those giants as Alibaba, Amazon, eBay and such clearly differentiate: Sellers and Buyers! although their system also allows sellers to buy and buyers to sell - the RULES and REGULATIONS which set the standards of BEHAVIOR are clearly and strictly DIFFERENT! If you act as Seller - you automatically must adhere to the frame of conditions for Sellers; and accordingly if you act as buyer. Buyers PAY, drive the DEMAND - while Sellers deliver the Product, i.e. provide the SUPPLY! They play DIFFERENT roles in that! Buyers are NOT expected to nor evaluated for ability to SUPPLY / deliver! while Sellers are only expected to pay FEES! (which in fact ultimately paid by buyers anyway - from their Payments). Buyers come there to SPEND and CONSUME - while Sellers come to EARN and PROFIT from that!!!

That's as simple as it gets and the very fundamentally ESSENTIAL! IMO, based on the sufficient experience in those actual business models aka "Ecosystems", to be really SUCCESSFUL - system can not make all Frankenstein-like "Buyer-Seller-Manufacturer" type! Manufacturers make Products, Sellers re-sell it, marketing guys promote Products and services associated - and only Buyers / Consumers, who can and willing to afford it - actually PAY for all those things!

We can't be serious in blaming for or expect change the behavior of all those DIFFERENT types of participants! because actually the whole System is made so and literally INVITES all of them to use it in their own way and exploit its "flaws".

Although, come to think of it, IF it is indeed PURPOSEFUL arrangement, not at all a "flaw" - then ... it is actually exploiting the flaws or failures of those naive users who are unable to figure it out! i.e. clever sophisticated "Re-distribution of Wealth". Is it or isn't so - it's not for me to say. I assume there are others who knows better. I'm simply analyzing the obvious state of affairs.

In fact it is an Investment / Lending / Slow-HYIP Platform where "Justice" is irrelevant or very relative thing and thus "good content curation" behavior Vs "votes farming" talks are simply superficial, can't really change anything and ... a DISTRACTION from that harsh TRUTH. As that boy said to Neo in Matrix :

Do not try and bend the spoon, that's impossible.
Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon.
Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

Same here on SteemIt, some shrewd people who could figure out that they can NOT Change the Eco-System (aka "bend the spoon") - instead they adjust according to it, i.e. "bend themselves" to fit into it. THAT'S the Truth! Their whatever behavior is CONDITIONED by that "Truth".

Once again, using the George Carlin's words:
"It is called American Dream - because one has to be asleep to believe it!"

Similarly here can paraphrase it into:
"It is called SteemIt, because one has to BELIEVE that it is indeed an alleged alternative social network which REWARDS people for their Content"

Also comes to mind that famous quote from Orwell's "Animal Farm", paraphrased to suit the SteemIt "Ecosystem": “All fishes are equal, but some Fishes are more equal than others.”

(source)

Let everyone make their own decisions and choices according to existing Reality and Truth! What they wanna be: which type / size of "fish" (according to their ability to INVEST into SteemIt) and what behavior to adopt. After all, this "Ecosystem" doesn't give a damn about all those choices, decisions, action - as long as it helps it to continue EXIST and thrive.

There's Always a Bigger Fish