The current system of voting and rewards—designed, it seems, to both encourage and reward participation, and reach a consensus on popular content—is largely effective in accomplishing this essential function. It identifies a subset of content as popular and rewards people who produce this content (even when serendipitously).
With the hindsight of 2 years, seems you’ve come to the point of publicly acknowledging that the reward aspect of the voting is mostly[potentially] benefiting “abuse” (rather than being paid out to the best and most important bloggers) as I had predicted in 2016 was the only possible outcome.
Did the voting model seed the site with anything sustainable that could really disrupt the centralization of the Internet? Or was it just a gimmick to obscure the sneaky premine obfuscation of a self-issued ICO? Have you seen SEC Chairman Clayton’s latest warnings? He is warning in writing those who even promote “pump-and-dumps”.
P.S. If you didn’t see my latest blog about the timing of the next crypto winter, you may want to take a read. I have received positive feedback about the content.
RE: Voting is a popularity contest