The theme for a long time now, is favouritism.

So many issues of past experiments have boiled down to cartel, collusive behaviour which results in highly mismatched reward/value. It is apparently no different here.

As I opined in her post, given all the love and support received, she has not engaged -at all- and has historically on other platforms never reciprocated either.

If she signalled publicly that she was now on Blurt, and supporting the platform, advertising, shilling etc. Then perhaps an outsized reward might be of value, but as it stands, it is just an attenuation of the kind of entitled behaviour that exists on this platform - "Foundation, give me blurt for minimal work whilst cross posting everywhere"

While I think the onus is on the community to decide, the foundation has decided to become chief distributors of the reward pool, which all but encourages zero investment from other large players. This is the beginning of the death spiral.

Comparatively speaking (because I also don't believe that other free-loading, zero risk contributors should be receiving the rewards that they are getting), it is unfair to other contributors who now see the ugly side of nepotism and favouritism shining through as desperation to get Blurt in the public eye - with a proven milking e-thot that doesn't actually care no less - has come at the behest of other honest participants who won't ever get the same kind of attention despite making much larger and significant contributions.