I am not sure what your final usage of this.

It seems heavily dependent on the curation team, not the STEM community but that might fit the use case.

A few days ago @heimindanger posted about the Dlive case and a comment he made against them. Anyone who upvoted that comment were then blacklisted for votes at the suggestion of one of the Dlive team (redjepi). This seems to be a risk of sorts here too where the personal relationships between poster and curator will effect decisions heavily in both the positive and negative, regardless of content quality. Does anyone who questions STEM or give any negative view then suffer at the hands of vindictive curators?

Even if a post itself is brilliant and attracts high engagement from the STEM community, it isn't factored in unless it gets a vote and, that size of vote is dictated by the curation team itself.

I think the curators/management should be included in the calculations for transparency purposes also as they factor into the voting and quality of STEM posts.

My concerns are things for example like:

The top 30 most reputed SteemSTEM authors of all time, out of 2662 authors

15 deathbatter 4.466

This person who I found interesting got support from their first post by the looks and all stem posts but hasn't posted at all in 2 months. They have only been registered for 4. Shouldn't reputation also come with some length of track record? Perhaps the degradation takes this into account but they are still number 15 of all time and they managed that in the first 2 of their 4 months with the last 2 being absent.

I am not a coder and this is far out of my area of expertise so perhaps it suits the purpose it is intended for.

What I do like is the degradation which should be applied to witness votes to stop inactive witnesses still holding top 50 positions. I also like that there are many people working on possible solutions to what is the useless Steem rep system. Having many people think from different perspectives means that there is a chance that something decent is developed.

Question and experimentation is good right?