Maybe try and fix the real problem with downvotes first:
Downvotes, as only corrective measure create a situation where there is real insentive to choose more disruptive use of stake to maximize profit (running a bid not, messing up the trending pages and messing up the reputation system) over less disruptive behaviour for maximizing proffits (commenting on your own posts and upcoming those comments).
Currently bid not owners are abusing the reward pool while being more or less bullet proof as long as they don't post or comment. The worst of the bid bot users, through using bid bots all of the time boost their reputation enough to gain the higher ground against most potential down voters, as we have all learned retaliation is a bitch and down voting someone with a higher (in this case, false-) reputation than you isn't wise.
Have a look at the results from this poll. While opinions differ on what behaviour by passive stake holders is preferable, everyone seems to agree running a bidbot is not.
I mentioned two possible measures in my counter proposal post that could help actually address creating the preferable incentives instead.
- Make reputation impact of upvotes opt-in and document it as being meant only to be used by actual personal user wallets, not by bid bots. That would address much of the false reputation created by bid bots today.
- Implement a blockchain wide advertising economy. For users, bid bots are free limited scope advertising. Provide them with better alternatives, and not only would that disincentive bidbots, it will also create a tool for drawing in new top content providers, away from other blogging and blogging platforms.
As with the linear convergent rewards that is a bad idea once you do the math, because it does nothing to incentify huge fish to behave, whilst hitting new users disproportionally hard, this part of the proposal too is more likely to worsen the platform economics than to better it.
I know these posts are done mostly for show and you guys already have made up your minds about implementing these "features" as long as the top witnesses are on board (and it seems most of those guys are easily confused by a bit of high school level math), but in the end, these three measures seem to all be tailored specifically, not to improve the economic position of the platform within the world ecconomy but to improve the ecconomic position of Steemit Inc within the STEEM economy. I hope I am wrong about this, and that you will look at the arguments against these specific measures and alternatives suggested my me and others.
