See my reply to @whatsup here.

Ironically I started creating the comments because I though they would attract (spread out) some of the votes away from the posts and reduce the trending effect. That didn't seem to work here. I also vote late myself, to reduce trending.

High inflation is a huge challenge for Steem and it is very possible that paying out less % inflation (via burning) would increase the price of Steem and therefore ultimately increase the amount (in purchasing power terms) that can be sustainably paid out without continuing to drive the price of STEEM down by 99% and wrecking everything.

Of course that may not be true, but it is a reasonable debate and matter for voting.

Also, see my other replies to @whatsup and @abh12345

Spam is discouraged by the community, including **comment spam.**  Specifically, your comments have been downvoted for the referral links in each one.

More Information:
[The Art of Commenting](https://steemit.com/steemcleaners/@steemcleaners/the-art-of-commenting)
[Comment Classifications](https://steemcleaners.org/comment-classifications/)

That this comment is high on Trending signals loudly that something's awry with Steem's reward allocation protocols. What a shocker, I know. In my opinion, this content is more valuable than those above it, which are mostly either Steem circlejerk or far-right conspiracy trash. The only consumable (though mediocre) content appears to be self-voted (by themselves or representing a group) by a whale.

That's fair but IMO this is more a question of whether the Trending page is really implemented and featured in an ideal manner, and perhaps having this 'content' there is a way to drive home the point.

It is entirely possible that this is the 4th most "value-contributing" content item (after considering time weighting), even if not the 4th most interesting to read or feature. Of course, people can disagree on that too, but it is a different question from whether value paid (or in this case burned) should be used to determine featured visibility status.

BTW, I consider downvotes of @burnpost content to be entirely legitimate and proper. Stakeholders who feel more should be allocated to burning and those who feel less should be allocated to burning (as well as visibility effects) have equally legitimate say in the matter. The resulting consensus should determine the amount burned.