"130 votes/day is too much

"13 votes/day until you build up your SP is plenty."

I strongly disagree (BTW, it is actually 10 votes/day. Your 13 votes is 30% more than I get to cast daily. 3 votes is 30% of my daily allowance.). Being limited to ~10 votes/day is being limited to interacting with but a fraction of the people I desire to interact with. This strongly inhibits my ability to grow my SP by developing reciprocal relationships with creators of content I find valuable, and who might find mine valuable. Reciprocity is a strong social motivator, and a robust mechanism driving the value of social networks.

Being limited to ~10 votes/day also contributes heavily to selfvoting, particularly for new accounts that have visibility limitations due to not having established an audience, and lacking understanding that using their votes to gain visibility is far more beneficial than trying to selfvote themselves more SP. HF19 decreased the votes available to the poor by 400%, while during the time HF19 was being developed, the number of posts increased by 1000%.

This is a vote desert for new accounts, and much of the desperation evidenced by those new accounts for follows and upvotes is a direct result of the 4000% fewer votes available per post (for accounts without a slider - the vast majority of accounts), as is the pandering to whales, and casting of votes on trending posts by authors that consistently trend, as curation rewards are substantial if one can get in on such a post early.

Why do you think that ~100 votes a day is too much? YOU have ~100 votes/day. Do you feel oversupplied? Do you feel that having those votes makes you a danger to the platform or blockchain? Do you feel that people without sufficient funds shouldn't be able to interact with others? I fail to see any superable rationale for the idea that ~100 votes/day is excessive.

Consider @liberosist's proposed VP decay curve, where the first ~100 votes/day are essentially at 100%, after which VP decays rapidly to zero. Even avid Steemers (that post and comment substantially, rather than merely vote/insubstantively comment) will find ~100 votes a reasonable supply of interaction, while bots, which currently have an unlimited number of votes they can cast, in the extant VP decay scheme, that deliver some rewards, would be limited to the same number. Since, IIRC, VP decay was intended to decrease the profitability of botnets, @liberosist's proposal seems an improvement over the extant scheme.

I really want to hear some good reason why I, and other Krill (as you disavow the term Minnow. @dan's flagging of @berniesanders has proved that the metaphor of larger eating smaller is appropriate, IMHO.), should be limited to the number of votes I can cast on posts I have completely read, and commented substantively on, in an hour or so.

Take your time. I have all day.

Edit: spehllingh airrohrz