Could there really be a hidden agenda behind the recent hard fork? Running down a few comments in a thread the other day I came across an interesting analysis I wouldn't have ever considered for a social media site. The fact the person who responded back didn't refute it mixed with another comment made that many have established a living off of steemit and those people need protected it only reinforces the analysis as a possible reality.
The statement:
Here's the other problem.
The more people who post and vote the smaller each share becomes.
I'am stealing from you right now simply by posting and voting.
The reward pool (including your fractional share) would be larger if I walked away from steem forever.
If we magically landed some big fish off utube tomorrow that has over a million followers, steemit's existing 30,000 users will have their steemit-rewards-pool-percentage cut by at least 66% and many will be diluted down to almost nothing. (below the minimum payout)
It's like the bitcoin miners. Fewer miners means bigger rewards. (each gets a share of the pie) zillions of miners means tiny-if-not-non-existent rewards and only the largest mining farms can afford to stay in business. (business always creeps toward centralization) Recruiting top tier talent would spell doom for the top tier-dogs. (as far as reward pool percentages) although it would very likely boost the value of steem back up above $1.00 USD (by boosting the market cap)
**
To which the reply back was:
For someone so new here, you seem to understand Steem economics better than myself!
**
To which I admit I was a bit taken aback by the admission that it's highly likely the move made during the last hard folk was to encourage the loss not gain of people to the platform in order to increase the percentage of rewards loss due to the drop in steem price to the upper tier, especially for those who have afforded themselves of making a living off it. Basically anyone caught between the lower and higher tiers who were earning enough to subsidize their income a bit that income was considered a loss for the survival of the fittest and the lower tier was considered totally dispensable. That totally made sense to me when considering the call out whatsup was making several months back that they needed to form groups to survive when the price was dropping. So it's sort of funny that ended up coming to fruition, giving the above statements some validity.
