Thank you for your feedback; I truly respect your opinion. However, as I’ve mentioned before in one of my responses, I don’t believe in labeling anything as purely good or evil.

The team likely considered a model or strategy to keep the platform functional and the blogging space active. Perhaps others have proposed alternatives that were ultimately deemed impractical. I don’t have a concrete solution myself regarding this matter. As we often claim that Steemit is a hobby (a hobby that you can wish to adopt as per your convenience) and can never replace a job, there must still be a way to keep the platform running and humming. How exactly? That’s another question entirely.

The initiatives taken by the team are bound to have flaws, just like any model in the world. My observations—and perhaps suggestions—are made within these confines.

That said, I don’t deny the existence of biases, favoritism, and differences—not only where the team is involved but also among some regular bloggers. Unfortunately, there are those who continuously abuse their privileges when given a larger stake, and that’s something we cannot overlook.

I’ve also touched on many other topics in my post, sharing my observations. For instance, the criteria for defining a “good” post is worth discussing. If only certain types of posts are consistently supported and, by virtue of trending, become the standard for quality, then creativity is bound to suffer—and, frankly, I already see it happening.