Blurt is and always will be, a free speech platform, where people are free to post their thoughts and ideas, to just Blurt out whatever they feel like. But free speech doesn't mean free rewards!

Cept the vast majority of users here EXPECT free rewards.

What does free mean in this context?

• excessive foundation use of power to the extent that stakeholders are diluted beyond any meaningful reason for them to invest.
• no skin in the game financially, and no reason to create stellar content that would justify the value it is attributed beyond this echo chamber.

People who purchase blurt have a financial stake that is not free. Whenever people get cross about abuse on Steem-like platforms, it's usually because they have some notion of the price being affected by the content getting the rewards - either it's too little, or shit-posts are getting too much. And by extension, the ill-gotten rewards going to market and harming the price, while presenting the platform as an unattractive investment.

How much impact is ill-gotten gains having on price (vs massive exodus of existing stake) ?

I challenge someone to answer that question with blockchain proof.

The crux of the matter simply boils down to this:

Do you want the price to go up because of the illusion of "quality" content driving user adoption and purchase of stake - (from the looks of things, there isn't a clear reason to invest outside of speculation)

Or, do you want the price to go up because there is large influx of investment for high ROI.

Someone will always eventually hold the bag, but the core experience (condenser + blogging) is a tried and tested failure. To add further rules would strip blurt of any ideological advantage over it's sister chains.

I say, let it go full crypto-anarchy.

cjdns and the Koreans are a useful bastion of hope (and of significant investment potential), they participate and don't have "hand-out" entitlement. Those are the kinds of people that will drive up demand.