Dan had a pretty good idea of how to balance competing interests, but instead of letting the code change our behaviors, we changed the code.
Where @dan made his mistake was in allowing the ninjamine to go forward.
Accounts having outsized influence blew the balance all to hell.
It is still the biggest flaw I see in the design.

Instead of reining in the greedy that were destroying the platform, we changed the code to accommodate their negative behaviors.
'We' changed the code to include a tax for being poor of up to 50%.
I guess 'we' wanted the already too rich to grow even richer.
The imbalance in rewards to go to those with the most.
Brilliant, imo.

'We' still haven't run those people out of town for doing that to 99% of active users.
Their knobs still get slobbed because they still have outsized influence.
Now the two 'most active'(read: buys the most friends) communities are tracking your data and presumable selling it to the enemies of decentralization and freedom.
They tell us it's for our own benefit.
Somehow I doubt that.

All the while hive gets the reputation in the industry as being a steady transfer of funds from the suckers that buy in to the accounts that already have the most.
Can't really argue with that supposition when 50% of daily rewards for activity here go to 20 accounts.
The 20 accounts that already have enough influence to invalidate the original balanced design.

I've been going on about this for several years now.
You'd think people would start to catch on, but nope.
They continue to ignore the reality and prefer to slob the knobs hoping some crumbs will fall their way so that they can dump them as quick as they get them.

Until the current central controlling cliques no longer influence the pool we can forget about finding a better reputation and people willing to play along.
What has been will continue to be.

Smdh.