I am attempting to speak from a set of guiding principals I believe in because I've been wrong about things in my life. Let me say this...you may be correct about your concerns...for me, that only informs the decision to investigate thoroughly. With respect, your conclusions are meaningless to me because you are a victim here and far from objective. Voicing your suspicions so vocally in advance of a forensic examination of the blockchain is premature and counterproductive in my opinion. Don't take that in the wrong way, I do not mean it as an attack, just an observation from the point of view of how we might do things better in the future. If virtualgrowth is running sock puppets and games with the intention of conning votes from people and withholding reward funds, then we must put a stop to it.

In the future, perhaps initiatives and the scripts that run them should be put through an open peer review process to minimise ambiguity or bugs or whatever...before they are launched. Reputation would obviously be greater for those that went through that kind of process.

Let's see what the data says, then an informed consensus can be reached. If the Steemit community can accept that in an innovative environment, we are going to continually run into issues....no I don't think that spells trouble....I think that is the means of making this platform far stronger. What makes a problem from which we can learn acceptable is the way we choose to deal with it. For instance, those who are harmed, we do everything reasonable to help them out or compensate them. Hopefully the problems will be caught fast and dealt with faster and make future problems more difficult.