So.. A whale could use their 'bonus' downvote power to downvote anyone they don't like the sound of or who disagrees with them (perhaps even disagreeing on the future of Steem, for example). They would then be rewarded for silencing dissent AND increase the rewards available for themselves and their self upvoting in the process.. Win, Win.. for the whales. Lose, lose for anyone who disagrees with them.
I recall we talked through this a few months ago and we didn't reach an agreement - I seem to recall you acknowledged that a separate downvote pool has it's problems.. I still think that a separate downvote pool has HUGE problems and as others have pointed out - many of them are as much psychological as anything else. New users don't like diving into a pool where the food sources are already heavily controlled by a small number of 'fish'. If those fish are actually sharks and now have the ability to not only hoard the food, but actively remove it from others on a large scale - then very few people will want to be here.
This community relies on those with the most stake making 'good' decisions for the community, but in reality, few agree on what that means and the typical approach seems to be "well, of course I'm going to do everything I can to maximise my 'return' - I'm funding all of you other users anyway". This is, unfortunately, more of an anti-social networking approach than a social one.
I feel what has been lacking is a shared vision and mission for Steem that everyone can align with. Adding the ability to create more division, without adding a powerful aligning mechanism to unite people is a recipe for disaster imo.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There can be no shared vision in a system which is designed to favor particular stakeholders. Steem is such a system, and stakeholders are inherently opposed to one another by the metric through which some are preferentially favored. The essential metric here is stake. The more stake you have, the more you are favored.
Want a shared vision? Create a platform that potentiates it. Wanna see more downvotes? Make them cheaper for whales that can afford them, like the bully that'll flag this comment. The only proof anyone needs that the DV pool will be abused to further harm ordinary users will be visible in response to this comment.
Thanks!
It should be noted that iflagtrash just follows you and automatically downvotes you so it is not curating at all. It is just attacking.
You're correct. It is contrary to the purpose and raison d'etre of a social network to automate votes.
Thanks!
I flag trash. You have received a flag.
I flag trash. You have received a flag.
No, a mechanism (a generous description since it is more of a half-baked concept than a true mechanism) as I describe would be a replacement for 'bonus' downvote power, not in addition to it.. Since downvotes and upvotes would both be (under the right conditions) rewarded, there would not be an imbalance the way there is now.
Both downvotes and upvotes are valuable work. The soundness of the system depends on payout being a good measure of value, not too high nor too low. Currently only upvotes are rewarded and downvotes are seen as a public service where the system may benefit but the person doing the downvoting is not recognized in any way for this service. That's a large part of why we see virtually no downvotes.
Anyway, I don't think this is worth a whole lot of discussion since it is nowhere near solid enough to be implemented any time soon.
My comment was really addressing the general concept of a separate downvote pool, but also considering the downvoter being rewarded too. Most of the problems I see also apply to the situation whether downvotes are rewarded or not. I don't have an issue with more downvoting power being 'theoretically' helpful - but in the wider context, considering all the other rules and balances/imbalances, I personally still think it's a bad idea. But hey, it's not up to me - it's up to those with the most stake.. Who, I'm sure, will be looking out for the little guy all the way. lol
I'm about as cynical about this as you are generally speaking, however, in the short term there is a synergy. Most of the big guys do recognize that the little guys (improving both growth and retention) are the path to growth and to the price of Steem ceasing its long spiral toward zero.
This really isn't about the big guys coming up with a way to rape more value from within the system, as most are doing a perfectly fine job of that already. If that were the goal, the best thing to do, and certainly the easiest, would probably be nothing.
I see the one selling point of Steem, that cannot easily be corrupted by money, is the free speech aspect. By making downvotes a bonanza for the wealthy - we risk removing that strength. People who say that downvoting isn't censorship are right on a certain level, but wrong on another. Messages get promoted online primarily via social media and advertising on social media - so, often, those with the most money get heard the most. Downvoting removes reach from messages/people and will be weighted more in favour of those with the most money if they get extra downvote power in relation to stake. If downvotes just removed rewards then it would be less of an issue, but they currently also limit reach. Maybe UIs would be developed to incorporate the ability to view lists of posts without the effect of downvotes to compensate for this - but it just feels to be the wrong approach here. I feel like this 'feature' is just wallpapering over the cracks.
If the main selling point of downvoting is a way to counteract bots, I think there are better ways to do that.
The likely result for free speech would be people using some concentrator other than steemit.com to view the blockchain data so they don't have content hidden just because some disliked what is being stated. The power of steem is the blockchain and that it can't be censored. The steemit.com concentrator though in honoring down votes very much can censor. The people just have to be aware of other ways of viewing the blockchain. That is very unuser friendly and something most people would not do, or not know how to do, so for all intents and purposes it might as well be considered censorship.
Great comment, how toxic can we make it?
We'll soon see. I expect EIP to be implemented soon, perhaps even HF21. Will that be enough to shake off all the fleas that parasitize the whales? (one perspective, advocated by bidbots), or enough to eliminate the market that makes the stake of whales have value? (my perspective). My view predicts that implementing EIP will quickly reduce the value of Steem and drop it's rank on CMC. In the event that is the result of EIP, I do hope that the rapine profiteers that have plagued Steem from the beginning will join the exodus, and perhaps allow socially positive corrections to be rapidly implemented in the aftermath.
I flag trash. You have received a flag.
Completely agree!
True and downvoting is dangerous. I would prefer having likes and dislikes and upvotes and a view count. I understand why people feel like they need downvoting. But, it can be dangerous and stuff like you said.