I'm aware of some of these studies. I support the downvotes when they're being used a tool to combat abuse. The downvotes are being abused though, by people who should know better, but they don't. It's embarrassing to be associated with morons like that.
A good artist will never sell themselves short. We don't put prices on our work here. There's no limit. A musician might sell an album at 20 per unit. They have no idea how many units will sell. If they go platinum, they won't be telling people to stop buying. A Youtuber doesn't tell people to stop watching at a million views. This concept of "reward disagreement" is being misinterpreted or spun intentionally to penalize people as a show of strength. Reward disagreement means you're doing something wrong and I disagree with a wrongdoing being rewarded.
And honestly, when it comes to SMT's, I'm not excited to go work for an unproven token that won't have the potential future of something like Steem once did or Hive could have. That's a story for another day though.
I think you are not understand the token mechanic that is supposed to work behind the downvotes. Upvotes means someone thinks you should be earning more, downvotes means someone thinks you should be earning less. Up-downvotes are used to have the community to come to an agreement on the value of your post. This is how this is supposed to work. However, many content creators think they are entitled only to upvotes and anything regulating this to have the community come to an agreement on some post payout is taking money away from them. This is not how this works. The inflation belongs to everyone, so, the stakeholders have the duty to regulate the distribution (with up AND downvotes).
That's just unnecessary spin. You're clearly missing the part about how that individual is targeting specific content and downvoting blind. Making user experience horrid. Even my previous work was downvoted blindly recently as punishment. That's not 'curating'.
And I hope you're not placing me in this 'entitled' department because if you are, you've made a big mistake in judging my character.
There's no need to explain honest curation here. That's not what this is about and honestly, if the perspective of the artist or creative type is never taken into consideration, and we're forced to work under this ridiculous 'code is law' nonsense while common sense is thrown out the door, this place will forever struggle.
I think there is a way to huge focus on rewards and downvotes are taken way too personally. I do strongly believe that a lot of the enormously voted posts about hive deserve some decent sized downvotes too.
Why is the user experience horrid? If you put a video on youtube and get 1000 upvotes and 10 downvotes is that not something you'd expect?
Again, where you're attempting to take this conversation is unnecessary. I've been saying similar things for years defending honest curation but we're not talking about honest curation here. I won't be reminding you again.
I get the complication of having a high stake account like likwid downvote stuff "big time". However, the only way to counter this is by searching for other whales that are willing to counter likwid downvotes with upvotes if they agree that this is excessive at the current economic model.
That's why people are talking about taking this stuff to SMTs, if you got an art community and only the art community users hold the SMT (basically) they decide who is rewarded. Depending on the size of the art community a value is then established.
That's the only way this can be handled (without centralized control).
And no, I was not aiming at you with the comment. I was aiming at a lot of people here in the comments that were complaining in general about downvotes.
The problem remains, if you wouldn't see the post value of each post as prominently as it is atm, people wouldn't notice this and the user experience wouldn't suffer.
You can talk about wasting resources all you want. A culture that celebrates success and takes care of their investment would make more sense. I get it though. There's always an asshole. One bad apple will spoil the whole bunch.
After watching and experiencing what happened with the tribes and those tokens, I have very little faith in an SMT used in that same fashion. Complete disaster. I'll assume you've not read any of my posts talking about the content here is basically a product we refuse to sell. Severe shortage of genuine consumers. Most problems go away when there's more people here dedicated to consuming only, provided they have a bit of skin in the game. You mentioned Youtube. Imagine if all those upvotes were worth a penny. Content creators would be doing great, provided people would just mind their own business and let people do what they do honestly. Again though, about Youtube, and these massive downvotes that are unnecessary when the content isn't harming anyone... that's just like being demonitized here. There needs to be a better reason than "I simply don't like your work" or "you're earning too much." Would you tell Stephen King he earns too much because you don't like those stories or would you realize your book store will have an increase in customers and sales due to quality work and that's a good thing?
I'm sorry for ranting. Been a long day.
On the last question, if stephen kings would be funded by my tax money (inflation) instead by the book sales and I didn't enjoy his books (Although I do) I would definitely agree on allowing people to altering this.
And Yes, I also agree on the sentiment. If there were 100k active users here upvoting a post with 10 HP each, single whales would have very little influence and we wouldn't have to worry about likwid at all.