I have been taking a break from writing this series of posts (not because of the lack of upvotes/payouts) but because I thought that there has been more recent efforts to address the question of e-quality (quality of posts) and equality (distribution of power) on Steemit. I don't want to point out or promote certain posts or users (if only because it defeats the purpose of these posts), but suffice to say we have heard more activities doing the rounds on trending posts and so the flag wars seem to continue.
In times of conflict we tend to see innovation, because the pressure and stress in a survival situation necessitates the efforts being dedicate to finding a suitable solution. Indeed we have seen some attempts to address the issues through better delegation of SP to a broader group of users, various metrics used to measure the quality of posts and the usual promotion of users with low reputation or visibility.
Fundamentally it comes down to the issue of whether steemit is a meritocracy (and if it should be), and if so what are its values and merit on which users climb the social hierarchy. If this is something that we haven't been able to address in society, what could we possibly do differently in a blockchain based system to improve this?
So what are the forces at work here? Well for starters everyone has different views about what defines value or quality, and this is captured in the upvote as a metric so there's no way to know what it is about the post that people see value in, or if they see the same 'amount' of value. Recently Medium.com implemented a quantitative metric to their Clap (Like) button so you can assign more Claps if you think something is worthy of a standing ovation rather than the polite solitary clap. We may not have a way to untangle all the elements of quality (despite my best efforts to put in utopian.io suggestions) but we will probably be working towards a way to filter and see the contents better as an alternate solution.
On the subject of power distribution, I think this is simply a matter of roles that evolve as the platform grows and new users are introduced. Pioneers of the platform deserve credit for the hard work that they have put in to overcome the initial hurdles or lower the barriers to end up with a viable ecosystem. However, if they don't make additional effort to maintain and contribute to the system then should they be allowed a free pass to continue taking from the economy? This is part of the problem with welfare systems in many countries, where having a safety net or universal income discourages its population to contribute to their best ability. To make the situation more complex to assess, cryptocurrencies have been riding waves of euphoria and speculation that has undermined the real value of the problems that blockchain applications are designed to solve.
Applying the concept of practical wisdom, the core issue of whether meritocracy can work on steemit really comes down to whether we believe that all steemians are equal (and whether some are more equal than others). There will be forces that determine what we see as 'quality' content on steemit and algorithm modifications to try and distribute power more evenly - however, I think this will be underpinned by how the community as a whole choose to accept or reject the fact that meritocracy should be the basis on which people are rewarded for their contribution, or if it will continue to function like a free market with the usual economic rules and constraints.
And if we can't evolve our mindset and behaviour to think and act out of the box, then we will still be stuck in it as long as we happy and comfortable with the status quo - but I think and I hope we can do better.