Great!
I'd like three things:

1. I've changed my votes to represent my perspective as best as I can, but there seems to be intentional obfuscation when it comes to witness opinions on relevant issues. I'd like to see an "official" post, from you, perhaps, after talking to each of the top thirty witnesses (because we need alternatives if we're not going to vote for a top twenty witness) on those topics.
2. I'd like real information about the expected impact on author and curation rewards of EIP. When asking people like @markymark, I've only gotten answers that it can't be answered, because the intention of EIP is to change behavior, so it'll be different because behavior changes. But that shouldn't be how we make big changes. We should collect as much data as possible, and at least provide a few scenarios to compare. I propose that we see an analysis that assumes behavior will not change. The biggest impact, I think, will be the rewards curve but I don't really know. Will a post that gets 2 steem in today's environment, author and curator rewards combined, get 0.5 based on that number of rshares? Will it get 1.5? Will it get 0.05? I have not seen this analysis.
3. I think most humans using Steem are having a positive impact on the Steem environment. There are a few bad apples spoiling the bunch, and they have a lot of accounts. I think EIP misses their needs pretty dramatically. If EIP is going to go through as proposed, something needs to be done to protect them. There needs to be a way to upvote a comment you like that isn't IMPORTANT you just want to show your approval and give it a few pennies without "wasting" your VP because you're not voting on a viral meme. I propose a whitelist of users who will find their little votes matched by 🐋 votes up to its expected value in pre-EIP. That way, the positive, human behavior won't disappear.

Posted using Partiko Android