That means that this cycle all of the votes that you have left will distribute 1% of 1000 tokens, or 10 tokens. It doesn't matter what you voted for, it doesn't matter how many things you voted for, it doesn't matter how active you've been – when this reward cycle is completed, you distribute 10 tokens evenly across those votes.

If you don't vote would your share of the window move onto the next window (essentially you double your spending power via "vote" saving), would the stake be reallocated among the reset of the votes, or would the inflation just disappear? I think the first idea would be interesting as dead stake would essentially reduce inflation (maybe?) or you could save up a lot of inflation stake to reward a single piece of content more.

As long as you vote, that vote will matter and that vote will matter equally scaled to your SP. It gets rid of the evergreen problem, because we don't care how long ago the content was created, we just care about whether it received a vote in the last voting window.

Using this approach seems simpler to reason about and benefits "good" content over the long run. If you solve the evergreen problem, you also encourage people to focus on creating content with more longevity and quality now that they don't have to worry about people seeing it initially.

I think "de-gaming" the mechanisms and simply conceding the freedom of choice to a user upfront could reduce a lot of the upfront complexity of the system and it solves multiple potential issues that people complain about here.

Rather than trying to throw mechanisms at users to try and force people to behave in the way we want them to, we should simply be openly in favor of letting them do whatever the hell they want. Because at the end of the day, that's want people will do. No matter how complex and well-designed of a system we keep trying to design, there's always a way for someone to "manipulate" it. Maybe we should concede we can't control folks and build a simple system that achieves a simple goal that people like and understand how to use.

Rather than looking at content as a place for content appraisal, we should just support who we like or continue to grow our stake if we decide we don't like anyone. That choice shouldn't be forced by people because at the end of the day, you are bound to piss off people on both sides.

I don't have the time to spend my time to vote on 10 pieces of content a day. It would be nice if those that got my 2 or 3 upvotes a week really could benefit from it instead of them receiving pixie dust and me not allocating my optimal potential.

That being said, I think we gotten to a point where there's so much technical debt that such an idea would be better served in a better designed blockchain rather than here on Steem. The more they grow the codebase with complex mechanisms, the harder the monolith becomes to change.

But I really like this idea. It's a shame that it isn't talked about more.