@antisocialist: Evergreen content is had by making a comment, setting the author as beneficiary, and voting the comment. IF your vote doesn't round down, then viola!, evergreen content. Farmers can't farm a damn thing, curators vote the rewards to them. Curators are the problem if rewards are going to the 'wrong' place. From my earliest anti abuse days, I have a 5 digit account number, the rule has been that curators can't be bothered to curate properly, it is up to hw's, or cheetah, or the community anti abuse initiatives to pick up this slack that the irresponsible curators create. It's a block chain. It can be shown, if people dare to look, where the holes in the balloon are. Who is sending rewards where can be addressed, directly. I understand how direct involvement in where rewards do and don't go could make some accounts vulnerable to the security accusation, but if done by the community as a form of community self defense, I doubt that the sec can make a 'hive is a security' charge stick. Especially, if the largest accounts don't participate one way, or the other. Hive is a 'social platform', let's be more social. Insularity and opacity is not conducive to spreading the power, imo. Quite the opposite, in fact. Rather than change the code, why don't we change the behaviors that exploit the code? If somebody is counterfeiting hive through ai or other 'farming' means, then flag them, that is why flags exist. If you don't care enough about where the rewards are going to flag some back, why do you claim to care about where the rewards are going at all? Clearly, you don't. Get out there and crab in the bucket. This is the game, as designed. Further, if the distribution was 'all that', the top would be less a pinnacle and more a plateau. IF the distribution was optimal there would be dozens of influential accounts on every side of any topic. Until this pinnacle becomes more of a plateau ending the distribution feature will be the death knell of hive. People don't like us now because a few people are 'too powerful', could you imagine how little they would like us if the faucet got cut off? Ending the rewards distribution means stake centralizes to those with stake, a clearly sub optimal distribution scheme, if you are trying to get more users of your currency. If satoshi had kept all the btc for himself, it would have no value to others. Giving them away for proof of work gave them their value. It's the same for hive. The rewards pool was intended to operate as a faucet to incentivize adoption, not as a means for those with the most hp to maintain their percentage of the total power. Yes, this concept of 'maintaining the percentage of power' has been a topic of discussion on the chain since before I got here. You can find the conversations, if you look. Those that were on the chain and not in the secret slack, anyways. I can see why the sycophants might lose sight of the reality, but if you love hive, and want to see it replace fiat, snap tf out of it. We need small savers the world over to hold their savings in hive. The best way to get more of those is to give them hive in return for their loyalty. We don't need drunks, degen gamblers, and spendthrifts to piss it all away as quick as we trust them with it, imo. Not at this point, anyways. I vote accordingly, you should, too. These 'town halls' should be abundant enough that when folks become heated they don't get cut off. These heated conversations are often where truth is found, by both sides. The 'all positive, all the time' hive is not gonna fly as long as there are negative emotions that need discharging. Better to discharge them as they emerge, imo.