Good perspective we could see some Steem Millionairs soon! We still have time to load up on cheap Steem to though you can just buy in if you want! Check out my article on why I think the hackers might have a different motive then just stealing money, this could be to create a cheap price to buy into the currency.  https://steemit.com/the-hack/@acassity/hackers-real-motives-did-the-hackers-have-other-motives

it will work out for everyone the 1 way or the other

There's one more factor at play, to explain to newbies why some posts seem to make a ridiculous amount of money: The content rewards are supposed to reward much more content than currently exists. So if, say, tomorrow we had 100x more members and posts, rewards would have to be more "shared" between them.

> Much of the frustration centers around confusion over how each blogger's contribution to the community gets valued by voters (or should be valued by voters).  Folks seem mystified that a makeup tutorial could possibly be eSTEEMED (see what I did there?) more highly than a thoughful article about cryptocurrency or perhaps a beautifully vulnerable description of one's personal life struggles.  

> However, remember that the purpose of Steem is first and foremost to place a valuable currency into circulation.  **Given that, there's really only one "logical" way to measure a post's value:  Does it make the currency more valuable and lead to broader interest and circulation?**  That's it.  The end.  It doesn't matter how much time the author spent.  It doesn't matter whether the post was eloquent or vulgar.  All that matters to a rational Steem holder, especially a whale, is whether or not the post improves the value and distribution of Steem.  

> With this understanding, it's clear why the often-maligned make-up tutorial was rewarded so handsomely.  It represented a-first time opportunity to expose Steem to a new demographic--a critically important demographic (and I don't mean just women).  The beauty and fashion indusury is huge, and it "sells well". 

I believe this analysis is incomplete because whales have to balance multiple factors which determine the long-term viability of Steemit.

While promoting the content which appeals to the widest untapped demographics is one of those factors, I don’t believe it is the only factor.

Some of the other factors include:

* motivate enough users to not abandon the site, i.e. the stickiness of the site.
* promote enough varied content that it doesn’t become impossible for users to find content
* cater to sufficient diverse interests so that Steem’s business plan of being able to pay for the content by debasing transactions instead of investors doesn’t fail. A widely used currency requires it be adopted by diverse members of society.

Unfortunately the [dominant game theory of Steem’s current algorithm](https://steemit.com/gametheory/@biophil/what-s-a-minnow-to-do-the-game-theory-of-steem-part-4#@anonymint/re-biophil-what-s-a-minnow-to-do-the-game-theory-of-steem-part-4-20160718t201818233z) appears to be for everyone to copy what the whales vote for, thus hypothetically minimizing the diversity of promoted posts.

I don’t think we are claiming that exceptional blog posts shouldn’t earn huge payouts. Rather [I’ve proposed](https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/improving-steem-s-rankings-to-cater-to-diverse-content-preferences) that we need to improve the algorithm so diversity is not minimized.

For example, instead of roughly 10 out of every 100,000 posts earning 1000X more then the other posts, I’m contemplating the algorithmic adjustment I explained in my blog post, so that very roughly 100 out of every 100,000 posts would earn 100X more than the other posts. And moreover, that those 100 posts would be the “Top 10” posts in each of 10 different diverse like-minded voter clusters. Perhaps my technical point and argument is bit too mind-bending for many readers to fully grasp. I made some replies in [my blog post](https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/improving-steem-s-rankings-to-cater-to-diverse-content-preferences#comments) which attempt to explain the various factors as I currently understand them.

Thus the Steem white paper appears to [make the erroneous assumption](https://steem.io/SteemWhitePaper.pdf#page=40) that the voter has no mental calculation cost to make, but the game theory strategy of maximizing rewards (also the non-anonymous voting) can cause wise voters to be overly circumspect and stingy with votes (even for comments) and also to vote only for the “Top 10” trending blog posts.

> Steem bypasses micropayments completely because when a user upvotes a post it is the
community that pays the bill. The same amount of money will be spent whether the user
upvotes a post or not and the funds will not come from the voter.

> The mental energy associated with making an economic decision becomes a barrier to
participation for most people.

>> **The only transactions that users can approve without thought are ones that cost them nothing​**

The curator rewards are such a small fraction of the voter’s Steem Power, that only those with significant Steem Power are economically motivated by curator rewards. Thus we could posit that minnow voters have no great mental calculation cost when voting since they can vote their conscience without significant curator reward implications. Although the minnows don’t individually have much impact on the payout rewards, collectively they do since there are many more of them than there are whales. Thus we can conclude the white paper is more or less correct w.r.t. to minnows and w.r.t. to whales, the votes are not a replacement for micropayments because the whale’s vote doesn’t involve an insignificant economic value.

Excellent explanation.  Thanks.  I'm now freed from my steemit addiction as everything I post is related to freeing people from reliance upon currency.  I thought steem would be a good transitional step to share with people but no one I know, people that can really contribute interesting material, is going to bother posting here if making a few guys rich at the top is the primary motivator.

It's been fun.

Beautifully written post, Sean!

Great post! I replied in my own post. I'd appreciate your thoughts. =D
https://steemit.com/investments/@axiomprime/steemit-economics-positivism-vs-praxeology-part-1

The hypothesis is that those with the most to lose will vote in such a way as to promote content that leads to the success of the platform. However, it is but a hypothesis. Steemit is, after all, an experiment. We have witnessed both confirmation and refutation of that hypothesis.

I would consider @guerrint's contributions' success a confirmation, because she has proven to have a very smart approach to marketing herself along with the site. She leveraged YouTube and expertly promoted Steemit in a way that wouldn't be too overbearing for her target audience... As good as it gets.

However, we also have to acknowledge the posts that have snuck onto the front page with little merit. One might consider it identity theft to pose as a heroin addict by plagiarizing a professional photo set. And plenty of quality posts have languished with less than a dollar payout despite a couple dozen upvotes... Content with potentially wide appeal goes unnoticed. And of course there's the "circle jerk" side of things... Once a user reported counting 16 posts from the top before reaching one that wasn't about Steemit.

So yeah, there's an idea behind how things are set up. And some reasons to be happy with how things have gone. But there is cause for concern. It's a debate we have to continue having. Fortunately we will, because that's the nature of our experiment.

In my opinion actual steem reward system is too good with whales and too bad for small accounts,  i see it unbalanced

Terrific post that highlights the problem when a freedom-based community collides with an entitlement/socialjusticewarrior mentality. One year ago no one was making anything blogging/commenting/voting on a site called stememit and now some people are offended because they haven't received what they somehow think they're entitled to. 

Wake up punk. Nobody owes you a thing.

Well said. I talk about voting rewards in my newest [game theory](https://steemit.com/gametheory/@biophil/what-s-a-minnow-to-do-the-game-theory-of-steem-part-4#comments) article too; I'd love to get your feedback.

Good day ! help to understand please , I do not receive a curation reward . I First thought that it was due to the fact that i not passed the verification of account , or that there is a threshold SP?