Experiment : Was it worth it? Penetration testers test, they do not ask permission to test (Upvote so the post don't get hidden)

Yes and No, yes because i learned how this community works.Basically any whale could take control over steemit if they wanted to.And that doesn't seem decentralized to me, imagine what a large company would do if they invest just enough.I wouldn't say that the community's system is doomed but it is flawed (Headnotes):

-The first flaw i noticed in steemit was cheetah bot, and i successfully bypassed the bot by adding some hidden characters in the post) and contacted it's creator then he fixed it.

-The second flaw is permanent ban, a steemit account is a social account.Just like a Facebook or Youtube account (Which big companies like those still haven't found a solution to spam, yet to steemians blacklisting seems correct ?), people have no right to dismiss a post based on their power.Downvoting shouldn't be the opposite of upvoting,

 
🚨🐳 Im Taking a Break From Steemit / Downvoted By Smooth for No reason / WARNING TO NEW MEMBERS ! 🐳🚨

Hive account@karenmckersie

it is fair that Hive account@smooth downvoted Hive account@karenmckersie simply because he can, what is not fair is his ability to do so.Downvotes should be counted equally based on quantity of the downvotes and to solve the mass voting problem simply account should be validated through all (A fair count of active posts,a fair amount of steempower and a good reputation score)

-The third flaw is trademarks, this account is proof of it and see the flaw as you want.another example is the account Hive account@shapeshift.

-The fourth flaw is curie, yes curie is doing a great job but what about steemians ? curation rewarding should be done through steemians not funded by them only then selected by a committee as curation is the base of steemit and it sure as hell should not be centralized.Curie is simply a temporary solution and yet it should be part from curation not curation itself.

-The fifth flaw is pattern, after a few months in steemit i started to see a pattern.To be a popular steemian you should either be a whale and invest in steem power or attract a whale as minor audiences curators have no considerable effect over posts, this gave me the idea of power limitation (The number of steemians should have levels of powers and not power over levels, and once a certain final level is reached -whilst including in the algorithme the other factors mentioned above- all whales have the same level of power, them having extra steem power would only  increase their vote power over different posts daily only, not all their power over one single post: dooming it or valuing it)

This article is pretty much an uncompleted spreadsheet for everyone to add their opinion to, payout of course is declined so upvote as you like to promote the post.

No because i spent too much time on this experiment and i didn't revise for the exam of tomorrow.