I think one of the bigger concerns is that larger accounts can obliterate earnings for someone they don’t like. Having a separate pool helps in that they can obliterate without cost to themselves. Perhaps the downvote can be a one person, one vote system rather than a percentage of SP. This gives the smaller accounts some opportunity to successfully downvote unremarkable content by bigger accounts, removing the immunity from losing rewards they would otherwise have. For example, if your self vote is worth $2.40 and a downvote from a small account is worth $0.001, you can afford many downvotes without concern.
A one person, one vote system could work on percentages. Your self vote and one downvote would be worth 50% of the reward. One self vote and two downvotes would be worth 33% of the reward. The percentages would be based on the ratio of upvotes to downvotes. This would also prevent a bunch of big accounts helping each other out with massive votes as the dishonest upvotes would also get cut by the ratio of upvotes to downvotes.
For example, 3 big accounts vote up a post to $4 and 6 smaller accounts downvote. Total 9 accounts. That’s 33% ratio. Reward goes down to $1.33.
Since it’s going to be a separate pool of downvotes anyway, they should operate differently too.
Posted using Partiko iOS
The amount of bad actors that are whales, is way outnumbered by whales who don't do these things. You can almost guarantee anti-abuse guilds will start to combat these actions if found to be abusive.
The odds of people getting downvoted by whales in a system that doesn't reward them when they have most of their stake in vote bots is very doubtful. Since most high-value votes are bot votes which they help provide votes for.
Why? It's been done during the whale experiment. It didn't last. They don't do it now. I see no reason at all any that aren't now will do so just because it doesn't cost VP. The other costs of doing so will remain, and are more substantial.
I flag trash. You have received a flag.
It would depend on how many people downvoted the individual post.
A 100 steem post would get chopped down to 50 if it’s the self voter and the downvoter. 33 on the second downvote. 25 on the third. 20 on the fourth.
We’re talking about curation, right? A bad post should get multiple downvotes if people take the job seriously.
If you have a post at 100 Steem and there is an upvote/downvote split at 50/50 with 100 voters, the reward is only 50. In this case, something else is happening because curation will tilt heavily for or against a post.
If the votes are not heavily skewed, then it’s likely a vote war. The one person one vote for downvotes method would ensure that the creator doesn’t walk away empty-handed.
It would also discourage team votes. If your upvotes are worth $1 at 100%, but you’re trying to help your friend by upvoting his lame post, a downvote would cut your share too.
It has to hurt the bad content creator and also the accomplices.
On the other side, if it’s good content with lots of upvotes, let’s say 50 upvotes, then losing 1/51 of the reward for one downvote would be negligible. It protects genuinely good content.
Whereas ownership downvotes strongly favor big accounts. A popular post with 100 upvotes can be zeroed our by one big account. There is no protection for genuinely good work.
Upvotes by ownership. Downvotes by percent of votes.
Posted using Partiko iOS
To be clear, I’m satisfied with the way it is now. The fact that they are asking means they intend to monkey with the downvote. I think that whatever gets instituted will have people figure out how to game it out of principle.
Posted using Partiko iOS