So how do you allow for one and not the other?
If some things were made off limits for downvotes, people would extract value from those opportunities.
These are very difficult problems to solve. It's easy to complain about them when they impact us personally, but very very difficult to built actual solutions for them.
The way it is solved in my opinion is to not encourage downvotes. because we know factoring in human nature that it will be abused by the high stake holders here. It will only effect the low stake holders. Literally every economic model ive ever studied has eventually gotten to that. But I get what you are saying. Perhaps this isn't the right time to introduce that. It should be left out of this fork. In my opinion a bunch of bad actors will wipe out newbies and drive them from the platform instead of being smart and distributing upvotes based on effort. I will go with the flow and I'm a steemian for life but you may have noticed in my wallet I have not powered up the 1100 steem Ive accumulated. That will go to diversify. I'm 100% invested in steem and it's scary because I don't believe those with power are smart enough to protect and grow the platform.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I highlighted in my post how the changes pretty much require downvoting to be effective according to the lead engineer's comments. If people can just extract as much of the rewards pool as they want without any way to counter that, things will get far worse very quickly. You do see that, right? I'm not saying downvotes won't be abused (they will). I am saying less wealth extraction at the expense of others creating valuable content can be avoided if people use proof of brain and both upvote and downvote. If it is left out of this fork, then there will not be a way to effectively counter what is already a problem.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit