Sure, I get what you are saying. Two things: (1) I emphasized that it's the EARLY votes on popular posts that reward you most. I wasn't the person who created the Steemit algorithms; I am merely explaining them to people. As long as there is money to be made in voting, because that's how Steemit is designed, people who need money deserve to have that pathway illuminated for them. But I don't think this becomes any sort of circle jerk because we might be talking about the first 6 or 10 votes on a post. And that really isn't enough to make an enormous difference on which content rises - the best posts will get more votes than that if people like the content, regardless of who the poster is. (2) If you read the article, I specifically explained quite clearly at the beginning and the end that you have about 20 good votes a day, but there is less "All Star" content than that, so I suggested that people should spend their other votes (25-75% of their votes) rewarding new, poor, and high quality blog posts. That is the only way Steemit will grow. You can also see my rebuttal in these comments to @tuck-fheman.