Right, but nevertheless other altcoins, whose prices also denpend on the price of BTC, overtook STEEM, which is only ranked 60th at CoinMarketCap nowadays.
Doesn't matter. Profit is profit. If you think most people are here for the ideals, you are sadly mistaken. The reason why downvoting is so painful on this platform is because everyone views that Steem token as potentially the ticket to massive gains.
Then again, there's also psychology. People complain about being downvoted by tiny votes from @camillesteemer and their hundreds of alts that literally amount to nothing.
That, and also the unrealistic mindset that this is the place to supplement their income. It can be, but it's impossible to be that way for everyone. People like @baah are on the rare side of the spectrum where "Que Será, Será" is the mantra when it comes to rewards. Ideally, only serious content creators and large stakeholders should care about the rewards.
Look at the comments under this article for example: a whale upvoted his own comment to the top and flagged another comment which actually got way more upvotes.
Because @transisto has been one of the most vocal large stakeholders about this issue. The "more votes" you see simply come from people looking to counter his downvote.
It's hard to make a judgement call on the proposal when I do see the positive and negative side of things, but I do know that status quo is not good.
There is no profit, if the STEEM price always decreases, which it does since a long time. There is especially no profit for big stakeholders.
It doesn't matter to get a bigger piece of a cake, if the cake is getting smaller and smaller.
And I see no reason why smaller accounts shouldn't be here to earn something, even if of course there is no 'right' to earn.
You do realize that a number of big accounts didn't buy their stakes, right? Also, BTC going up always affect the prices. If you can't sell higher than you acquired (in this case, click of a button), then you are doing something seriously wrong.
Why are you so focused on small accounts not being able to earn? They will be fine. The proposal here is more geared towards bigger stakeholders. If there are no stakeholders, nobody earns.
Let's just wait and see.
Sure, but nevertheless they would be eager to see its value raise again.
I think BTC and trading is not really the topic here (even if it's interesting). Of course every trader tries to sell more expensive than he has bought ...
As I wrote in "My STEEM Vision.", the value of a (social) network is measured among others by the number of its users.
A rich pool of satisfied users would also make STEEM much more interesting for larger investors in the long run than it still is today, interesting to place advertisements read by many, to market products, to disseminate information.
The value of Facebook is also due to its large amount of users not because of - for example - superior technology.
I partly agree with you.
Used in an appropriate way flags are essential for the success of the community.
'Cheap' posts with huge rewards on tranding are a problem.
However, I also know that many users have suffered under unjustified whale flaggs, left (or will leave) the platform and spread that information.
In my opinion flag abuse is a real problem, as well.