RE: Downvote Pool Deep Dive

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Downvote Pool Deep Dive

smooth in #steem • 6 years ago (edited)

So.. A whale could use their 'bonus' downvote power to downvote

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.

6 years ago in #steem by smooth

0.00 BPC

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

ura-soul 6 years ago (edited)

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

0.00 BPC

2 votes

[-]

smooth 6 years ago (edited)

Who, I'm sure, will be looking out for the little guy all the way.

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.

0.00 BPC

3 votes

[-]

ura-soul 6 years ago

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.

0.00 BPC

7 votes

[-]

dwinblood 6 years ago

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.

0.00 BPC

2 votes