I don't disagree with your comment about dbroze.
I am a little puzzled on something though, so Hive went from about 15 cents to aroun $1.38 USD recently, without and huge downvote campaigns being waged on anyone.
So what is it exactly that you think you are doing when you go around downvoting posts you think are 1. Overrewarded or 2. Disagree with?
Do you think you are somehow creating value by doing those two things?
Downvoting spam/plaigiarism/theft/gore and stuff like that, you will get no complaint from me against those things. Just because "downvoted due to disagreement on rewards" was a thing that Steem/Hive put in their "whitepaper/blue paper" doesn't make it a valid thing to do.
In all honesty, there's essentially no point in downvoting overrewarded posts, Hive is decentralized enough. The more downvotes target people for "over rewarded" and for "disagreement on rewards" and for "i don't like your content" the more value you are subtracting from the platform. There really isn't almost anyone on here who even comes close to using sock puppet accounts to upvote themselves and make tons of money from garbage content anymore, is there? Is there even 1 person doing that right now?
The totality of what you think you are doing, and what you actually are achieving is two different things. You think by downvoting urasoul and other posts like it that you are going to somehow get the price of Hive up and that people are going to rally behind your efforts to do so, and you can see the evidence that only 2 people agree with you and the vast majority do not.
So why continue to do this? You are only going to make people pool together more HP against you, to stop supporting your project(lose delegations). It isn't a good look from a PR standpoint what's going on here.
You're making it really easy for urasoul, me, and others like us to get more support I hope you realize.
Mostly 1.
I've been downvoting posts even before the Hive price uptrend, mostly focusing on those that bring close to 0 value to Hive, barely try, etc. You can check my own and ocdb's downvote history somehow probably. Another one has been ranchorelaxo casting 10 daily votes at a whim within a minute on whatever is trending, often landing on the same people constantly who themselves get there by a lot of autovotes and in my opinion the content doesn't deserve the rewards.
I often ignore those who get it the first time, no matter the content, cause that's part of the lottery in pob and other times they may not make as much, but if the votes are constant, auto/blind and on top of that the content is mediocre, farmy (being posted daily just for the autovotes), author never makes an effort to forfeit part of the rewards depending on the content/effort that went into each specific post they make but still end up with the same rewards, then yes I have something against that and will attempt to protect the reward pool from it so everyone else receives those rewards instead.
There's tons of reasons why autovotes aren't good, have a bad effect on both the authors who become farmy/lazy/push themselves to post for those guaranteed votes and others who aren't on those lists and rely on manual votes or smaller ones with more effort/activity and often times better content. One way to disincentivize them is to reduce their returns a little, bear in mind I say a little cause I'm not a fan of zero'ing post rewards on content and when I say content I don't mean posts like this one we're commenting in right now that has a bunch of quotes and revolve around previous downvotes.
Good autovotes are those who spend time to adjust the vote strength, remove and add new authors to it frequently and do a little more effort to make sure it's fair compared to everyone else. There's some that do it well, many that don't because they either don't care or just enjoy earning passively too much. The linear curve has made it easier for autovoters to not care, especially those who were interested in maximizing returns, so one of the few ways to combat that and attempt to get them to do better is by downvotes. It's not always about the author alone.
Why not? Say price of Hive goes to $10, do you expect people to make $1k-$5k per post? Let maximizers and lazy autovoters just keep at it when there's a lot more users that have joined and are earning close to nothing? Or would you attempt to make it a little bit more fair, pressure the autovoters to distribute their votes a bit more and give the authors fairer rewards than the unrealistic sustainability we witnessed back in 2018 with $10+ sbd prices or the still ongoing problem you can quickly notice on the corrupted chain where it's the same 10 people trending constantly, making thousands per garbage posts while the rest are being sold or abused.
Downvoting for disagreement of rewards is perfectly valid. You complaining about it doesn't change that fact that it helps distribution, something I've worked on the past 5 years. If we had had downvote mana during the Haejin times we would've had a much better distribution today with way more dolphins and orca's that decided to continue staying staked and ride this journey. I don't want to see something like that again and this whole stigma of downvotes as if all downvotes are bad, it's ridiculous in my opinion.
Haejin and Rancho are totally different than most DV scenarios that are happening lately. They were doing 10 posts a day of nonsense TA which is all bunk analysis. TA is tarot card reading.
Also, almost every post made on LeoFinance is also trash and I dont think I've ever seen their stuff downvoted, their community has a lot of haejin minded people posting number go up nonsense.
A few bad actors always upvoting themselves and selling it eventually they dilute themselves and the problem solves itself without downvoting, though its slower.
Steem covered this fallacy of "everyone earns" in their white paper, stating that most people will join here hoping to earn and it's not possible and that they are hopelessly wasting their time on something that wont happen.
Same thing happens on any platform.
All the people flocking to onlyfans wont earn almost anything ever, or new streamers signing up to twitch almost none will make more than 100 bucks ever. Systems always reward the first and the most skilled who are in early, extremely rare for a new comer to be able to earn. It's just not how this system is setup nor others.
Increasing inflation by a higher amount would change that, hives inflation needs to be 10xed or 20xed. The bandaid is dving when what we need is higher inflation to fix everything
How do they dilute themselves without downvotes?
Your onlyfans/twitch comparisons aren't good. We have thousands of accounts being able to reward anyone they want with votes, tips, subscriptions (recurring payments), etc. On those other platforms they all just flock to where the majority is, the big influencers earn most of the rewards, there's no incentive to go look for smaller ones. You're literally making my point more valid that those who earn too much should receive some downvotes so everyone else makes more, thanks.
If an account sells any of their earnings they have less overall power in terms of the % owned.
If you have 1mil hp, earn 100k hp in a year, sell 50k in the year, you have less % of the overall hp now. The only way to not lose % is to keep powered up.
Over time everyone who sells gets diluted slowly.
In year 5 you might have .5% of total hp and selling some now in year 6 you have .485% of total hp. In year 10 you might have .42%
The inflation is too slow to correct for the initial distribution, so the inflation being higher could fix that problem, while also keeping the price low so that people dont make too much on over voted posts
Ah, thought you were talking about selling votes off-chain. It'd only be the author diluting himself in that case while the voter earngs more, content wouldn't be fairly rewarded in terms of pob and that's another reason why downvotes are needed.
I think we could fix most of hives issues in a year or two if the inflation was raised, even if temporary, with an emphasis on smaller accounts being able to get a bonus when voted on. This would require some sort of snapshot and a master list compiled so that it only gave the bonus to real people who are currently posting
Yeah it's too complicated for implementation probably, one can dream
Well, anyone who votes dilutes their % when they sell the earnings, or if someone never votes their stake is diluted each year due to inflation as well.
To keep .5% of total hp, an account would have to never sell. Anytime they sell anything the % goes down. It does take a lot longer that way to dilute of course.