What you say is true alright, but in the real world, things take a different turn. I assume most people on steemit are like me, average in everyway, trying to make a buck or two.
In the real world, zipf law takes over, the top minority earn the highest, and the bottom majority earns the smallest. People are naturally attracted to success and since curation reward is also at stake here, it is highly probable that people will vote and comment based on;
- Attraction to her success
- Chance for a curation reward
- Chance for a follow
- Chance for a resteem.
Dont forget the old saying, the rich get richer
I would be willing to conduct a poll on this though, it would be for a future post, thanks for the idea.
The fairest situation is everybody makes the same. The reward pool is paid out equally to every user.
For argument's sake, let's say the value of that equal share is 1 dollar.
If any user makes more than 1 dollar, that means someone is making less than 1 dollar.
People will try to increase their share by external input. In the real world, and Steemit included, this means building a following, contributing, being engaging etc.
Everybody has the same platform and same opportunity to do that.
If people want a situation where everybody earns their "fair share" then nobody will be attracted to posting because the rewards will be capped regardless of their effort.
The only situation where your logic can hold, is this exact case.
By allowing zilf law to happen through decentralised voting, the "market" is deciding on who wins the lottery and by how much. Everybody agreed to this when they signed up, and everybody would rather have a 1/1000000 chance of hitting the jackpot, than knowing that one never exists.
I never said you are a hater, but you can't say ''she is neither a programmer,nor a developer on steemit, she didnt come in as an investor, neither did she come in as a moderator, she doesnt work as hard as @pfunk or @abit does''
This is total wrong. I got your point that everyone is upvoting to get rewards but I think you said it wrong.
I fell also is something wrong here with all those ''sexy girls'' who just upload some pictures and put the tag ''introduceyourself'' and they are making more than I made in 2 weeks.
This is how Steemit works, unfortunately, but if you are consistent in few months you will find your audience.
Cheers and Good luck man!
Not to mention that sweet has some of the most amount of comment engagement on the entire platform. I upvote her because I like her content and I know from arguing with an imbecile earlier this week who also baselessly tried to defame her, that many of her followers including me stood up for her.
It's simply not the case that people only vote for her because of curation rewards. She has a genuine following and makes genuinely good content.
This davidthelad fellow refuses to acknowledge the amount of work she puts into her posts, or her contribution to Steemit over the course of the year, simply because she blogs about travel instead of runs a VM somewhere occasionally loading up scripts to check blocks are being found. (Meanwhile getting paid something like 1600 Steem a day).
His arguments are simply illogical and baseless.
You can't create a fair system where people can still trend. The very nature of trending means it is not fair to start with.
Yet, he is unwilling to accept the contrary and only solution whereby everybody is rewarded the same regardless of the quality of content.
I acknowledge that this has to happen in fact a perfect and fair situation is next to impossible, human input makes that task impossible.
What isnt impossible however, is the ability to be unbiased.
Always trending isnt normal, same way always winning in a casino isnt normal, or a footballer winning the ballon d or every year isnt normal. There may be better people out there, better than sweet at writing, better than messi or ronaldo, but the system, rigged to recognise popularity more than talent, creates a path inwhich only a few enjoy the benefits.
Football is a bigger topic of which i cannot currently influence, but the one i can(steemit) i try my best to influence. A system tending to lopsidedness will eventually collapse as the dust gets frustrated and leave, while the whales powerdown and leave. A hole forms and everything collapses on itself.
Always trending shouldnt be encouraged, im not sayings she shouldnt trend at all.
Of cause all these are just words, trending isnt an automatic system, it depends on votes and other criterias, so until people learn to source for other good content instead of running to hers, she'll always trend.
Also the post you replied to talked about what you essentially said,
Facebook and other social networks are an example of a fair system. You post something and you get nothing. Everybody gets nothing. The money goes to facebook. Facebook created billions of dollars of value essentially collateralizing the work of all their users and selling it off to advertisers.
Always trending IS actually very normal. Bill Gates has been the richest man alive continuously for the last 20 odd years. He is a perfect example of someone who leverages and uses every competitive advantage he has to maintain the lead. Still, it doesn't matter that he isn't the best programmer, the best businessman, the best investor. It's the fact that he set out on a path at the right place and at the right time. Not only that, he continued to carve out his path moving forward.
Sweetssj's competitive advantage comes from the fact that she joined very early. So, that has allowed her to build up a large following over a long period of time. This is something that takes considerable effort and should never be overlooked. Because again, if it were, then we'd just go back to the "fair system" which you now understand is not what we want.
Capitalism succeeds because the people who hold the most amount of stake in a system will be incentivised to act in such a way that benefits the system and therefore their own stake. People have seen sweetssj post consistently regardless of rewards for a year. She is a reliable public figure to support, one who is not likely to take the money and just leave. On the other hand, new users who have yet to "earn" their reputation struggle because they haven't had the time to build their following. It now rests on them to do so, and fight for their chunk of the pie.
All this bickering STILL basically boils down to one thing, which is inequality. You cannot bare to see someone who has invested more of their time into contributing to the platform than someone else who has just joined but posts equally good content. You fail to acknowledge the importance of accumulating followers , trust and reputation. Instead you jump to conclusions about how this and that isn't fair and at the same time dismiss the only solution to fairness.