Why should someone that doesn't engage in the platform, no matter their financial stake, have the same opportunity to vote as someone adding value, or taking time to support fellow steemers through voting and comments?
This would eliminate "absentee landlords" from renting out their steem to bid bots, then vacating the platform.
It seems to me if Ned wants to keep the "proof of brain" mining process in place, he needs to support content creators and this would be one way of doing it. We currently seem to have a "pay to to play" model, but what if it was also "play to pay" so that vote power could only recharge if a profile adds content, either through posting, or sufficient comments to add to the conversation?
I understand that he doesn't want to upset the largest investors, and we all owe them a huge debt of gratitude that steem is worth anything at all, let alone $2+ a share even in this slump. But, it only seems fair that they do their part to help build the platform they profit from so handsomely.
Now, on the other hand, I do think we can make what we want out of this platform with hard work and persistence, without making any changes, but at least if the whales had to participate, we would have the opportunity to hold them accountable with downvotes and comments, as was the original design to keep "bad actors" from dominating the small fish.
It seems fair to me, but I wonder if anyone agrees?