Here is a rule to reach consensus over freezing funds:
First off, rep would have to actually mean something on the blockchain, and not only a gimic bandaid against spam/porn on the front end. Then you give everyone on the chain the ability to be counted in a consensus, of 2/3rds of the accounts with over 65 reputations. And of course, everyone over 65 has the ability to flag as separate from downvoting, and/or counter-flag content. This way we give the responsibility in the hands of veterans of the platform, which would argue are by and large for conflict resolution and fair play so as to grow the platform and deal DEFINITIVELY with bad actors. As soon as someone uses a FLAG they are Inaugurated into participating in whatever proposal there are which all deal with Policing the Platform and Recovering Lost or Stolen Funds. If they had been active in the last 24 hours and have flagged/counter-flagged or Policed the network in the last week would be the criteria to be counted and only the responsible will be which means that when people petition the people with the power to flag, people ought to either ignore or respond if they have that high of a rep. This pool of eligible participants then gets to agree on a consensus level, so that anyone can initiate a proposal which would be nothing more than a line or two of describing the situation: "such user's funds have been frozen seeking a peaceful resolution to the controversy surrounding the account and the accounts linked to it" and execute the command flagging the funds in the account as frozen. That's that then, the account would be allowed to transact, would not suffer flags even, it simply could not power down or withdraw anything. Or the situation would be more immediate, some rouge account has been flagging stuff without any sense, we initiate the consensus and banish them from such responsibility. They could petition and beg for forgiveness from the network, etc, but they will be forced to open dialogue if they want to move forward. People would treat this place with a lot more respect, they will treat their share with a lot more responsibility, they will not be left defenseless to spam, their voting power won't be wasted on countering one person who went rogue, people would take their responsability at curating and growing the community or will get out. The wild west everyone had a gun, imagine if every responsible veteran has a gun.
So what if somebody has invested their own funds into Steem, only to have them Frozen shortly afterwards? I'm sorry, but that is a terrible suggestion and would compromise the legitimacy of the whole block chain.
Regardless of whether the reason for freezing is valid or not, it creates a risk that somebody could decide to lock up your funds.
I for one would withdraw everything if they did that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why? It's not "somebody" but 2/3rds of the people who participated in the last week in flagging/counter-flagging. It could be an even larger pool, regardless it's not Someone doing it, it's a whole group of people.
So what if someone has invested their own funds into here only to be frozen shortly? Obviously, if such a thing happens it would be justified and reasoned. What's wrong with punishing the abusers? If someone puts their money into steem does that give them the right to abuse the platform without recourse?
Obviously, there's no risk, not anything that a bank would do, there's no "someone" that would have the power by themselves, there's no reason why the proposal is terrible.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Flagging is attacking somebody's rewards. It's essentially money that belongs to the platform. Once the reward is paid out, that money then belongs to the person.
To then attack the money that belongs to a person, regardless of who agrees and why, would make a joke of the platform. Why do I care if 2/3 of highly reputable people agreed? I don't know them. I don't know what their motivation is.
Your idea is ridiculous, and it would be the end of Steem as a currency of any legitimacy or value
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's not attacking money on the platform. That's a very poor way to describe voting on reward distribution.
Because if you don't care what 2/3 of reputable people on this platform agree to then you might as well go invest in a platform that isn't a Social Network.
You think that giving tools that help the community police itself and stop for example someone maliciously spamming or abusing the system with their shares, which would directly devalue and have possible drastic consequences over growth and competing with platforms that aren't helpless to someone spamming child porn or some other faces of death gif, who are equipped with the tools to remove the noise, banish the abusers, lock the funds up and force a dialogue to open if they ever want their money back.
If you invested in this then you ought to consider that there is no mass adaptation until these bridges are crossed, and they are there, simply because you invested into it doesn't mean you can use your investment to abuse others with it. People will always have a problem with that, regardless how "hidden" it is it will never be a solution and good luck seeing something stable from a currency that backs "that" social network.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You're aware that these tools are built into the blockchain, we would simply need to go through the top 19 witnesses. They literally have the power to rewrite the code and form a consensus on adapting it, but giving people that are veterans some of those tools would be the deat of steem as a currrency of any legitimacy or value.. Are you aware the reason ETH split and what came of that split? Are you aware of the discusion around ETH concerning something similar to what I am describing?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What's not legitimate about refunding and reimbursing people for stolen accounts? Is it that far of a stretch to allow people to form a consensus on these issues and resolve them, wouldn't that give legitimacy and trust inherently because the tools exist? Will there be bad actors? Sure, but that's the point of forming some consensus over these issues and resolving them, unless you wish to be stuck, here now.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit