<blockquote>
For the most part this show followed the questions posed in the last post:
</blockquote>
<p>
OK, let me 'annoy' you with my old-fashioned points of view concerning some of them here: :-)
</p>
<blockquote>
Are the rewards being distributed well?
</blockquote>
<p>
In my opinion an unequal distribution is not the main problem, but the way <em>how</em> it is reached, <em>is</em>. It is still way too easy to succeed <em>not</em> by posting quality content, but by automated circle voting and self-voting of own comments. As far as I know the main idea of Steemit was to <em>read</em> articles and then decide if they deserve an upvote (in the ideal case independently from <em>who</em> wrote them). We are far away from reaching this aim.
</p>
<blockquote>
What constitutes abuse? How should we handle abuse?
</blockquote>
<p>
I think beside obvious kinds of abuse like spamming, plagiarism and extensive self-voting we should also focus on arbitrary flagging.
<br>
Many are saying stake holders should do with their stakes whatever they want but I am of a different opinion. Within a state there should apply rules valid for everybody, rich or poor. For example being rich shouldn't give you the right to punish or suppress (censor) anybody who is poor. The same should apply for the Steemit platform where I think should be implemented some (software) rules to prevent that big accounts can damage smaller accounts in an arbitrary way. I have nothing against investors to earn money (actually I am an investor myself), but I am against arbitrary flags or flags with the only intention to damage a certain user. Real discussions between bigger and smaller accounts are not often taking place here because the smaller ones fear to get flagged if they defend their points of view too persistently ... 
</p>
<p>
Furthermore it is true that (money) investors invested money, but it is also true that many other people invested for example much time or thoughts with the aim to improve Steemit. Money isn't everything which counts, and in addition I think that if we are able to create a platform where people like to stay and post and don't feel threatened by arbitrary flags, in the long run that will actually lead to an increase of the STEEM price (and thus would help the investors, too).
</p>
<blockquote>
How are voting bots positively or negatively effecting Steem?
</blockquote>
<p>
They may have positive effects as well, but they are preventing <em>humans</em> from <em>reading</em> articles and decide themselves if they are worth to be upvoted ...
</p>