If you are fairly new around here you may have missed The Whale Experiment that was brought to us by @abit and @smooth. Due to our lopsided Distribution it has always been difficult to reward "high engagement content". There just aren't enough stakeholder to curate and be able to reward excellent content. It is strictly a math issue regardless of whether or not you like our whales. We have around 57 Whales, a couple of hundred Orcas, 1100ish Dolphins and the rest of the accounts are inactive, Redfish or Minnows. There just isn't time and enough stakeholders to curate it in any meaningful way. This has always been true on Steem. Here is a @timcliff explanation of the experiment, as he is a good communicator and had more information than I did at the time.
One fine day abit and smooth decided to see how the site would work with a better distribution. They managed via flags and negotiation with the other whales to create a time period where the Whales didn't vote and those who did were flagged away. The entire reward pool is awarded no matter who votes and the amount of Steem is static and remains the same regardless of price and who is voting. By removing the Whale Stake from the voting influence they achieved a false scenario which simulated how the site would work with a better distribution. Of course they did this without the community's consent and it was a huge drama. I also have to say it was likely very bad for the largest stakeholders and completely unfair to remove their ability to use their stake. HOWEVER, it gave a glimmer of what the site would be like when there is a more balanced pool of stakeholders to reward a lot of different content. I actually loved the site during the experiment even though it was grossly unfair to the stakeholders and I wouldn't suggest repeating the experiment, I was happy in the end that it took place. I have experienced what it felt like and from my perspective it was good.
Just think if we had a strong middle class of users who were engaging, reading, curating, handling abuse and actively involved in the site. The number one problem I get frustrated with is distribution.
How do we achieve a better distribution. I hate to say it but a hard fall in the price would probably be the most likely situation. Some would sell and others could gain a more meaningful stake by buying in. I certainly don't think anyone should give their stake away. I have been thinking lately that we should try to get more inactive stake voting.
Here is why:
If those who aren't actively using their stake delegated it to end users and that stake was active, we would have more users able to give meaningful votes and it would also pull stake away from the voting bots. The more Voting Power is actively voting the more it draws from the current voters. (including mine)
A fun thought experiment I like to play out, is if SteemIt, Inc. Delegated 10k-40k to MANY active curators for short periods of time - 6 months or less, we would have more active stake rewarding more content. Yes, some of them would be bad actors but the amount would be so little and for so short of a time that I don't think it would matter except to those who can't accept that the world isn't fair. As someone with that amount of stake, I could see some being upset, I mean it would dilute my voting power as well, and I have earned or purchased every Steem in my wallet, but I'm here for the long haul and distribution is going too slowly for my taste. I would take the sacrifice for a better end-user experience and possibly better retention of users.
In any case I think the odds of that happening are next to none so in the meantime, BUY and HOLD, so the price doesn't have crash too hard to speed up distribution. :)
Also, I guess there might be some rewards going out in the form of SMTs that could help, now there is a date, I feel like I can consider SMTs again in the big picture.
Anyway, just thinking outloud.
What do you think about distribution and how we can achieve a better middle class to support the sites?
@whatsup