Well I'm a developer, not a economist. So I only use my common sense.

We have some great writers here on steemit, that really deserve the reward they get. But let's face it: there's also a lot of bullish posts and comments that somehow still earn a lot.

While I'm happy for these people, that they can make an extra buck using this platform. But the following has to be said.

The reason behind the reward pool is, that the content we write has a certain value. And by adding new content. The value of the Steem block-chain increases. Hence giving the reward pools the ability to 'pay' the writers.

If too much of the reward pool is accredited to posts that don't reflect their 'value' in a economic sense. Read: make non Steemians come to this platform, read articles and give the platform a reason to exists. This platform won't continue for long.

Of course here on Steemit we vote with our 'hearts' and not based on the fact when-ether a blog post or comment is economical viable or not. But if the value of the payout is greater than the value of the newly created content. Then the sustainability of the platform comes at risks.

What needs to happen for Steemit is that we attract a broader user base. Which then needs to write/photograph/draw/paint new quality content. That is also useful for people who aren't here on this platform.

So that non users also have a incentive to come and read blog posts here. (Giving the platform value).

We aren't the central bank, just because the reward pools assigns a value to blog post. That doesn't mean that this value automatically corresponds with it's 'true' value.

TPO.com was a platform with a similar concept as Steemit. But the 'revenue' goes to charities assigned by the users. Sort of a non-profit facebook. But never took off. While they even had some influential people on board like Jimmy Wales, founder of wikipedia.