No problem. Thanks for your comment.

Yeah, as the whole platform, from its inception, has been a stake-weighted voting platform, changing that would indeed destroy Steemit as we know it.

The whole idea is that the vestors and bloggers who have invested the most, or blogged hard and worked hard to earn the most Steem Power, have the most say.

Should these “top dogs” engage in market action detrimental to the platform, they are ultimately harming their own investment, as such actions would drastically decrease—or destroy altogether—any hope for a real ROI.

This model also allows for less powerful Steemians to work hard, network, and gain power, as well.

If we take away the very foundation of what Steemit is, which is stake-weighted voting, it becomes basically like any other social media site (save the blockchain aspect) where power holders are decided arbitrarily and governance is more centralized. Math and economics no longer fill the rule of objective order-keeper, but instead are replaced by this or that individuals’s arbitrary judgements about what is “good” or “bad.”

As such, individual Steemians lose autonomy and the ability to progress independently and make a niche for themselves, as they have no real fair say in the rules of the game.

As it stands now, if someone is unhappy about stake-weighted voting, they may choose to find a new platform with what they deem to be a better model. This would be a market signal to Steemit that there is a problem. One that, if not heeded and diagnosed, could potentially be the end of the platform.