"We need to also eliminate giving % of a vote under 100% until your upvote is worth at least a full .02."

This single rule would disallow me from following every single curation trail I currently follow.

I feel that I can do far more good on Steemit by upvoting via SteemAuto, thus spreading out my votes to more people; even though it won't give them any actual money, it will at least give them encouragement, and let them know that I value their content.

Encouragement counts, when a post you've worked your heart out on for hours pays out at a whopping .37, and it might even help to retain users.

If I am strictly limited to making 10 upvotes daily at 100%, each currently worth .01 with STEEM prices down, who is it really helping? Not, me, and not the people I follow.

As long as Steemit rewards are at least partially based upon the sheer number of votes, not just their monetary value, I consider this rule to be unworkable, and completely unfair to minnows, both on the giving and receiving ends.

Similarly, encouraging or penalizing users strictly based upon the number of their comments, regardless of the actual content of the comments, is also inherently unfair.

Sure, I'd love an algorithm that eliminates all the spam comments, as they make slogging through to respond to real comments made on my posts more of a chore than it needs to be.

But until there is a reliable way to digitally separate real, substantive comments from the spam, this is another solution that may turn out to be more curse than blessing in the long run, and may penalize Steemians who are actually active in real engagement.

Yes, I agree that it is important to address these issues, and I'm the first to admit that I have no ready answers. But more limitations on upvoting and comments, without addressing actual content, seems to me to be heading in the wrong direction. My two cents.

Thanks for opening up this dialogue. I am confident that, with real substantive discourse, we can resolve these issues as a community.