Since my comment has got some significant upvotes, I figure I should flesh that out a bit. First and foremost (IMO) steem is a social media concept. The thing that fascinated me most about the place/blockchain when I first heard about it was the alternative paradigm. That is, instead of the usuals like Facebook/Medium/etc where YOU create content but THEY generate income from it, here you get rewarded for the content you create. First and foremost, I think that is and rightly should be the single most important identifying feature of the steem blockchain (via the various front ends). And in that regard, I think it is entirely appropriate that rewards at least in some ways reflect the quality of the content.

The other part of the platform here is the blockchain itself and the crypto aspects of it. I think these are valid points of distinction that deserve focus and warrant the attention of at least some part of the community to help prosper. But to hold that every person on the platform must put the specific interests of the blockchain itself first before any consideration to their own rewards, is too rigid a view IMO. And this idea that I've seen taking hold in comments around the place lately that there's something inherently bad about a member only focusing on a very narrow selection of other users, is kind of authoritarian in my opinion. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so I don't expect that we should necessarily be free to award an unlimited increasing amount of rewards to any one individual. But I don't see it as inherently bad, as some comments are getting close to expounding. I think it can be problematic in some circumstances, and that the first recourse to dealing with it should be a community awareness campaign to attempt to more fairly spread some of the wealth if warranted.