RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I strongly believe one tweak would solve this. A free upvote to reverse downvotes. I talk about it here https://hive.blog/pob/@theycallmedan/proof-of-brain-theory-and-further-optimization
I reversed some of the damage from ura-soul, but in doing so I also hurt my curation rewards. No big deal to me, but a big deal to plenty and enough to make it so most shy away and or can't do it on a consistent basis without diluting themselves in the long run. I will revisit this and try to push for a community vote on it.
0
0
0.000
Ah, yes. I had not seen that before. Thanks for sharing!
I was getting ready to publish a post explaining how the only way to effectively counter subjective downvotes is to fight DVs with DVs; and then recommending against doing so, because it would ultimately hurt much more than it helps, due to all the collateral damage associated with every DV (i.e. DVs reduce or eliminate curation rewards from those who cast upvotes in good faith). Not to mention the fact that creating a DV warzone would be a really bad look for the platform.
Your proposed solution enables a counter that should be effective (or at least partially effective, depending upon the relative stakes of all involved) but without the collateral damage.
One potential problem I see with that solution involves timing. A malicious downvoter can time their downvote to occur just prior to payout, thus eliminating the opportunity for 'free upvotes' to counter the downvote. So, maybe free upvotes should be allowed up to 24 hours after the normal voting window closes.
Yes we would need to have a cutoff in place. After the final downvote is cast only the count upvote can be used for x time until finished. I'm sure there are so little holes in there to exploit but I like the overall idea.
It is one of the best ideas I've heard, to date, in terms of constructively dealing with Layer 1 subjective DVs. Regarding smooth's concern about someone splitting their stake to allow themselves the ability to counter downvotes against themselves, the fact that they have to split their stake means their ability to 'maliciously upvote' is cut in half, because if they use both accounts to upvote a single post, then they lose their ability to counter any downvote(s).
Although I don't know all the history, it seems a fair bit of the 'subjective downvoting' going on is focused on haejin and punishing him for past sins. If that is the case, then I would argue that enacting or keeping systemwide policies aimed primarily at punishing a single individual actually gives that individual far more control (over the platform) than is likely warranted. Just my $0.02 regarding something about which I am not fully informed -- so maybe that perspective is worth a proverbial grain of salt ...
does pulling ones upvote then 'zero-sum'
?
I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
If someone revises their upvote, then the original upvote is removed and the new upvote value is applied.
For instance, if I upvote 100% then later change it to 0%, the author gets nothing and I get nothing. However, I do not get my upvote manna back, so zeroing out my upvote takes those author rewards away from the author and also takes those curation rewards away from myself.
I believe u understood quite well, even if I was sleep deprived rambling and couldn't fully form coherence.
Ty, answered well.
I used to think that way pre-HF25. I advocated ending the UV window in like 5 days to leave 2 days solely for the DVs.
I basically got what I wanted with the HF25. The effective UV window shrank to a single day (no big deal) and the next 6 days are DVers' home ground.
Guess what, now we are brainstorming how to counter excessive DVs. It is cool you guys already started to brainstorm how to counter excessive "free upvoting". Still, smooth is spot on and the fact that people (good actors and bad actors alike) need to change their voting tactics (as they do after every change of the rulebook) does not mean the system is fixed. Anti-DVers will be temporarily happy until the next hardfork deals with "unfair advantage" of the "free UVs". Just like anyone who has seen a political party of their choice win an election is going to be temporarily happy till the next government cycle kicks in.
What we need to fix these issues is Bottom Up, Multilevel, Anonymous Concentrated Community Wide Consensus, (with proof of person and Trusted Reputation score , lukely weighting the votes to some extent to eliminate effect of double voting by alt accounts). #matrix8fixesthis
More info here https://peakd.com/hive-167922/@atma.love/re-khaleelkazi-20211229t22719405z?ref=atma.love
Sat Nam
Atma
!PGM !PIZZA !LUV
100 PGM token to send 0.1 PGM three times per day
500 to send and receive 0.1 PGM five times per day
1000 to send and receive 0.1 PGM ten times per day
Discord
@atma.love(3/3) gave you LUV.
No, we do not.
If a system breaks when alt accounts are present, it is poorly designed to start with.
Well yes, and i am talking about a new design.
The reversing/countering initiatives are going to run in circles indefinately. The reason behind it is the difference in the UV architecture vs DV architecture. While I consider "normalising DVs" the correct approach, you cannot find balance until there is a financial incentive to use DVs.
If DV mana produced rewards (making it unprofitable to sit at 100% just like current UV mana) the principal difference gets removed and the system gets more stable.
My best pitch would be to distribute author rewards based on sum of the votes while distributing curator rewards based on sum of absolute values of the votes (in non-math language: let's curation-reward a 0.1 DV the same as we curation-reward a 0.1 UV).
I could have made a post discussing the weak spots of the new system already but I would have got zero for my work and very few people would have seen it on their Hive frontend. So I have decided not to make it.
This is interesting and something I've not thought of. Giving a DV mana pool a divy of inflation, and it acts the same as UV in terms up earning rewards for using it. Few things pop into my head ill need to give it a deeper think.
It totally opens fun stuff like people parking their DVs on their alts or even self-DVing (to avoid either offending the crowd by DVing decent posts or "wasting" time to find actual DV-material) but decent rulesets seem to exist to keep things reasonable.
The real issue could be implementation. I am not really familiar with details of the way the code calculates the amounts but the fact that the post is supposed to take different amounts off the pool for author and curators might be a problem. Although I suppose you can always take out the same amount off the pool for both and then return the excess from the author side (generated by DVs) even without skewing the 50/50 split, the HBD haircut implementation thread taught me the code change could be more complex than expected.
Haha have a reverse burn post. Everyone park their downvotes there and create the most negative rep account there is.
Very interesting.
Yes, should be possible: first calculate the amount every curator had become, and then add/subtract the same percentage to/from everybody which you need to add/subtract that author and curators receive altogether the same amount.
I am not really sure what your method calculates as the description is too comprimed for me. I am picking the most readable part and expect you to elaborate in case I read it wrong / drew wrong conclusions.
I do NOT want author and curators to receive the same amount. That is what happens right now and that is the exact reason the DVing is OP.
A post that gets 95 worth of downvotes and 105 worth of upvotes pays out 10 total (5 author, 5 curators combined). The vision is to pay out 105 total - assign 105+95=200 from DAO, pay out (105-95)/2=5 to author, (105+95)/2=100 to curators and return the balance (95) back to DAO.
That way, upvoting a post that has (is going to have) DVs on it pays out full curation reward. Not 5/105=5 % of the par reward like Hive 25.0 does (easily reachable via UVing something noone reads / bothers to DV)
That is Step 1 (letting people know they can UV someone that is under a deplatforming attack). More tweaks are necessary in order to get a good value discovery, but the above is an improvement to the current system on its own.
That's why I thought you would mean or at least consider it:
Aber Englisch ist nicht meine Muttersprache.
Wie dem auch sei, den Autorenreward von der Anzahl der Votes abhängig zu machen und den Curationreward vom 'Votegewicht' des Votenden, ist eine sehr interessante Idee.
Dein English ist besser als mein Deutsch.
I never proposed that. Anyone can run thousands of accounts. There are ways to counter that but I do not consider them viable (some inadequate, others unwanted). I support DPoS despite most other DPoS fans make me feel embarassed.
I admit that was my turn to keep it too short. Let me elaborate. With incentivised DVs, you can expect everyone to use it as much as they use UVs. If we keep the current 4-1 ratio (not sure we should), we can expect an average post of 100 curated to end up at 60 value (80 worth of UV and 20 worth of DV).
Leaving it like that would mean nerfing authors'cut. Effectively, we introduced a new balance of 62.5/37.5 Curators/Authors' cut.
To avoid skewing the 50/50 split, we can change the DAO payout to 62.5/37.5 Authors/Curators. The abovementioned post that attracted 100 rewards (80 UV rewards + 20 DV rewards) gives 37.5 to Curators (37.5% of 100), 37.5 to Author (62.5% of 60) and returns 25 back to DAO. That way the 50/50 split is kept in the macro perspective.
Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.
No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.
Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.
No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.
I do not think FREE is a correct term for either so I do not think I can conclude anything useful from the formalism.
Why would you do that? If XYZ was harmful, zero would be the better value. Otherwise, why not nerf it to three quarters or 0.31?
In the original system, your UPVOTE bar could be used up by UPVOTING (OR) by DOWNVOTING.
You could choose to DOWNVOTE but that would reduce your total available UPVOTE.
After HF21, a FREE DOWNVOTE bar was added, so you could DOWNVOTE with NO PENALTY.
I am familiar with the system even though it was no longer in use when I arrived.
I am not cluttering up this thread discussing what FREE means to different people. What you wrote was not even related to my text you quoted (which is hugely appreciated) so I am not really the right person to address it anyway.
If you need me to elaborate on my previous comment, tag me in a quiet corner of Hive and I can try.
Thanks for your support Dan, it is appreciated here. I just read and reblogged your post on downvotes and you make some interesting points. I know that @r0nd0n is moving to amplify the actions of @freezepeach in a way that is not dis-similar to your ideas, but having an inbuilt system function within a DAO along the lines you suggest would maybe be the best possible option. I think that maybe your free upvote suggestion might be made simpler by just reducing the amount of free downvotes that people have to 1 per day, though the comlexity of the various proposed options will no doubt yield outcomes that I am not able to predict in advance, so maybe your model would work better.
It's definitely sub optimal to expect large stakeholders to police the network and usually it isn't needed - but then it usually isn't the case that other large stakeholders attempt to use negative reinforcement to increase their curation payouts, rather than offering positive, creative additions to the community. While it is unpleasant to see this in action and particularly when it is done under the guise of being a 'service' to the community, at the same time it is inevitable that such exploits and barriers to sustainable growth will get exposed in systems over time. The key is to focus on the solutions rather than get caught up in constant battle.
As a long time system engineer and now digital marketer, I am a fan of iterative testing of ideas and A/B testing. These allow us to see without any doubt which ideas/designs work best to achieve performance goals. Layer 2 solutions offer a definite way to test out a wide variety of ideas and I have advocated for this since the days of the mythical SMTs on Steem. We have never quite gotten there though and the high cost to entry for Layer 2 sites on Hive currently is significantly holding this process back.
If layer 2 solutions become cheap enough to enable rapid development and testing of new ideas then I think we will see these wider systemic problems resolved quickly too. In the absence of that, I would suggest being open to testing variations on downvoting via future Hard Forks, such as reducing the amount of free ones available and/or the DAO idea you mentioned.
Cheers!
Thanks for the mention. We are indeed working on a solution, which is the culmination of trial and error over these past few years. Allowing stakeholders to act in accord to with other like minded stakeholders to take the wind out of the sails with regards to politically motivated downvoters. No flag wars, no drama, just positive interaction to curb and perhaps eliminate the behavior entirely.
I like the sounds of this and wait in anticipation. Are you currently innovating this on layer 2 with the intent of merging it into layer 1 R0nd0n?
This will be a layer 1 solution using posting authority and manual reviews. Read more here.
Ok! Sounds like we might be on the right track! I’ll give this a read later on today. Thank you sir. 🙌
make similar to, with a 'tribunal' ? - if accounts are found to be dv at an unfair consistency, 'we the people' nuke them out of existence?
i dunno... im a bit of a shitposter, but ive never incurred a 'hater' apart from when scammo had his legion of trailvotes on me.
i try to vary my posts around, but i ... i think i burned out at the beginning with 5000 word $0.03c posts noone read / replied to - my thing is 'bounce' - i ... i cant even word it..... probably need to sleep (4:30am-ish, with 3 hrs sleep since 5pm 2 days ago )
i started with on point, then digressed infinitely XD
but thats why u guys love (hate is still love ) me though, right?
There is a free upvote service from @droida at http://droida.ch/hive/, but I highly doubt that it could reverse the downvote of a whale, let alone a group of whales. At least currently. This project should get much more support from the community. There should be strong co-operation to reverse downvotes.
Thank you for the mention.
Thank you for supporting the community. I wish you all the best with the project and with everything else. Have a nice day. Greetings from Hungary.
I appreciate Dan for doing that. Many moons ago Dan you published a video and I remember it quite well. I can't quote 100% from memory but it was something like below:
Somewhere along the line people forgot this simple fact, that when we publish a post, we have no control on voting. People may upvote or downvote. If it is an honest post, it shouldn't matter to the author. As the way hive is designed it is immutable.
Therefore, the only thing remains is the reward. As per hive (and original steem whitepaper) the author only gets the reward on the 7 day at payout, before that the reward belongs to the reward pool. Many people have hard time understanding this simple fact.
All these discussion is leading to if we want rewards at all on the Layer 1. More and more I am geting inclined to that we do not. Layer 1 can just be for the stakeholders we move the author rewards to Layer 2. Which is basically the main content of this post.
Hi,
there is no binding contract between the founders/operators of this blockchain and the individual users.
Everyone is liable for their own content, as happens, for example, with the use of images and texts that someone publishes as the author. You are relying on statements made by individuals or on a paper that is considered a guideline but does not call itself a law, which the operators (or witnesses) would take legal action if it were disregarded. Basically, they have no authority to do so, as they are exempt from such obligations. You don't have a clear situation here, even though you might prefer that.
Since the nature of blockchain in relation to blogging is something entirely different and still new (compared to private blogs or other media channels where there are clear payment modalities), I think it is understandable that someone would not consider their post as a "draft" but as a finished result. Understanding the seven days as a "holding pattern" is quite a lot to ask, when opinions and reactions to a publication can and do arrive from minute one. (Also, marketing differs).
In principle, it would be wiser not to vote or comment on a contribution as soon as it is published, but only towards the end, in case the author still makes changes. But since the function exists from the moment of publication (including monetary incentives), most people consider their own post and the posts of others as "completed" and I don't know anyone who seriously changes their own piece so much that it would take up, for example, a change percentage of over 20 percent. I think, this contradicts your statement somewhat about the 7 days. I find it anything than simple.
I don't know what difference you make between authors and stakeholders. Everyone is a stakeholder, including authors. What makes you think they don't have a stake? Once you collect value in your wallet, you are already a stakeholder, aren't you? The moment you theoretically put yourself in a position to trade cryptos, you are a holder of cryptocurrency. So I would like you to explain what you mean by this statement? Are you referring to the operators of the servers, the determiners of the content regarding the hard forks, the so-called witnesses? Who exactly do you mean by stakeholders?
Thank you.
You are absolutely correct. This is exactly what I am saying.
Since no such contract exits and never will. Consumers does not have any loyalty to the author/creators either. We can chose to vote what we like and how we like it.
Everyone is a stakeholder. The difference is, how much stake is necessary to have a meaningful opinion in governance. Again the answer is subjective. There is no real number and its a sliding scale. I have seen people taking meaningful part in governance with 100K HP, and I have seen people taking no role in governance with 12M HP. But usually since this is a DPOS blockchain it is widely considered proportional to your powered up hive.
You can have a better understanding if you read the whitepaper.
https://hive.io/whitepaper.pdf
What do you mean by "meaningful"?
In the context of numbers, i.e. the level of stakes, I can't derive meaningfulness. It's communicated content that provides meaning and in principle does not need a stake to motivate someone to make a suggestion or participate in the design of the platform.
But how I understand you, in other words, the higher your stake, the more weight and importance your word should have. Am I understanding you correctly? If someone with 12 M HP decides not to assert a will to shape, they could still do so at any time and have an influence. Whereas, on the other hand, if someone has far less than 100K HP, it makes no difference if they want to influence, right?
If no one has loyalty to each other, the whole thing here would be nothing more than a kind of gambling, where you just bet your chips on a whim, no matter what content you are playing with. No matter what authors write, it is not important what they write, but only that they write so that the game continues.
But I see something different. Loyalty and the formation of communities of interest are taken very seriously here, just as certain behaviour is either rewarded or punished.
The - one might say foolish - side that sees it all as great fun is not seen as funny at all, and the people who very seriously monitor behaviors and opinions seem to want to prevent the very face of Hive shown on the outside from being perceived as a gambling hall and a place of arbitrariness.
In my view, this contradicts the "we can choose what we want and how we want it." There are hundreds of etiquette posts, advice articles on voting and commenting behaviour, and a constant argument about these matters.
If it is as you say, no one would really want to spread the word that this is decentralised governance. Because of course that is not true. For me personally, I clarified the whole matter a few years ago with one of the witnesses here, who finally said that it is anything but decentralised. Basically, the marketers say something different than what's in it.
In principle, this is what could be written on the packaging:
Nobody takes seriously what is published here. It is a matter of complete arbitrariness. The rewards are neither rewards, the punishments neither punishments. No one wants to help anyone succeed, because the individual's personal blog is merely a pass-through for number shifts. All that is experienced in terms of meaning is a charge of meaning that is in truth unimportant.
I've read the paper several times back then and I bet, very few people read it. For me, that's subjective, it's not a law, it's an approach how one can look at this matter.
But do you really think, that is how the people here perceive this environment? I don't think so. Up- or Downvoting is connected to emotions drawn from the contents being published. If it'd be totally un-attached to emotion, there would be no need for either up- or downvotes.
Try not to write wall of text.
I can give you a simple rule of thumb. Purchase 100K-500K hive from the market and power up. You will see that you are participating in governance. If you can't, then don't worry about upvote or downvote. Live your life and enjoy.
Have a good day
Interesting, you want me to rethink my answer. I think it's fine as it stands.
There's always the possibility that someone else won't mind the length, it's public here. If it doesn't meet interest, I can live with it.
I already confirmed that this seems to be the state of the art. In case, you nevertheless read what I answered.
Basically, I don't take a position that is fixed in principle, it varies depending on the situation/topic and who I meet. If I ride on principles, I may ride them to shame.
You too, have a good day.
so to clarify, if u have a big enough wallet, u can be a douche or a king, and people will fall at your feet. and if u are broke af and posting just to put food in your mouth, it doesnt matter how 'smart' you are, or how much u COULD change the platform for the better/worse, because noone will see / listen to you, because they just want to get some whaledick
or at least thats what my 4 years+ have taught me XD
Indeed, such things can be observed. But away from the big theatres, people go to the smaller stages and what lasts for a long time can one day be quite a substantial structure, which may even be able to feed one or two people. If you are an artist in life, you often make do with little, but you are your own boss (well, in many things, if not in everything). You shouldn't mess with the world, it often bites back, but you don't have to pander to it either. I agree with that :)
sounds about right
That is exactly how Hive has always worked - with the small exceptions of the awesome, principled, whales/investors - who have supported the little folks, helped support journalists, and pushed back against the oligarchs.
There it is folks! Plain for all to see! Your words don’t matter unless you have a higher stake than the arbitrators giving their thumbs up and thumbs down in the coliseum of content that we all call Hive. Thus… the perpetration of literal “Hive Mind” and the manifestation of abuse across the blockchain. THIS is where the problem originates… and THIS is why we are NOT A TOP 10 COIN. [period]
Well said! Hear hear! 👏
:)
INFORMATIONWAR
Great point.
That is certainly an alternative that merits discussion.
I have often felt that the current model is not very investor-centric. I don't know of many investors who would want to bother with 'curating' in order to maximize their investment.
With that said, Hive's value proposition is far deeper than social media. Keeping social media rewards as a Layer 1 feature need not be a sacred cow, imho. However, I don't see any immediate advantages to eliminating social media rewards from Layer 1, and there would definitely be disruptions associated with doing so -- and thus unforeseeable unintended consequences.
A middle-of-the-road solution might be to enable stakeholders to 'delegate' a portion of their HP to a special account that continually self-votes half its HP (i.e. allows its voting manna to exceed 100% exactly half the time), then returns 100% of those rewards to the delegators. Basically, that allows investors to choose whether they want to curate or whether they just want to bank their would-be curation rewards, without hassling with curating (and they can choose how much of their stake they want to apportion each way, and can change that percentage from time to time).
The advantage would be that the reward pool will be larger (because the special account only votes half the time) and there would be much fewer autovoters muddying up manual curation efforts.
Sounds complex, and I am sure it goes against the core hive values. But it is a possible discussion point.
Are you attending hive fest?
Do you know the core members? Might be a good idea to get to know some of them during the hive fest.
I would like to, but I will be traveling during most of it.
Hopefully I can attend some parts, even if it's hit and miss.
I’ll be there and I’m certainly looking forward to it! 👍
Problem with removing voting rewards, I don't even like calling them that; I call it token distribution of the base layer governance system. We are on a coin voting platform. The inflation is lowering every block until it'll be sub 1%. 1% inflation is very very small, but will still play some role in further decentralizing governance. If we make the mistake of allowing only one group of people IE Miners, Dao contractors, or whomever, we could fall into centralization before we know it. I know some will say some people just power down and sell, but id always wager and say we have some very, very long term outstanding hivers who earned a lot through creating content and being active. For every 1 loyal hiver PoB has created, I'd trade you a dozen short-term dumpers. As inflation lowers, the dumping will have little to no impact on price, but the loyal hivers we helped mold in the early days will continue to shape hive well into the future.
Agree! For the last 3 years I haven’t sold a single hive, bought some. Moved into SL. You did the same. All your hive are bought from the market.
So we agree.
Redistribution is a hard concept for people to understand Dan. That’s the issue we are facing.
yep.
"Could fall into"... This platform has always been centralized, and will never stop being centralized. The dPoS system guarantees that - never mind the old Ninja Mine and all the other BS.
Good point.
However, the prospect of a witness reshuffle apparently struck a nerve.
Do you support the principle of free-speech and the right to a fair-and-public-trial ?
The only way to change the witnesses would be to change the stake-holders, which would mean someone has to put a LOT of money into Hive, to try to change things.
Anyone with the kind of funds to get stake like that, I would definitely recommend putting it into something besides Hive. Don't try to take a system designed for 1 thing (maintaining whale stake) and use it for something else... just build something else instead.
I support the idea of Free Speech, because it falls under the category of You can do whatever you want as long as you are not threatening, harming, or defrauding another.
A "fair & public trial" is definitely not something that I support. The whole idea of punitive justice exists only to serve the state, and those who control the state. In actual conflict resolution, things like a "trial" have no place.
There is a lot of stake that is not currently voting for any witnesses.
On that same post I pointed out how the "free upvote" is basically just a nerf to downvotes (those getting downvoted, whether justified or not, can use the "free upvote" as a sort of shield, which can be harmful as often as helpful). While that would help with "bad" downvotes, it would also hurt the value of "good" downvotes. I'm far from convinced it really helps overall, and could very well make matters worse overall.
At some point, people have to just accept the fact that voted rewards are a sort of consensus-finding process, and if enough people/stake don't agree that the rewards should be paid to someone or some content, for whatever subjective reasons, that isn't consensus, and the rewards won't be paid (or less will be paid). The total amount of rewards, system-wide, will still be paid, they'll just go somewhere else, somewhere less contentious and more aligned with consensus. One poster's loss is always other posters' gain. It is a zero-sum game in a short-term sense, and inherent in that is that not everyone can win.
Absolutely! We, the consumer are at liberty to consume.
That said I worry about the volume of non-sense that often get rewarded by massive upvote. Not only it makes us look bad (like a conspiracy platform full of shady people), but also most of these folks sell their rewards immediately and therefore are a drain in the system. I don't even feel they believe in the "snake oil" they are peddling, smooth, they do it because it pays handsomely!
What I'm missing the most in this subject is clear, visible ratio earned HP/powered down HP. This would be a great suggestion for distribution of upvotes for stakeholders.
I can request @dalz for this data. He usually loves this.
Powered-up invested funds should be counted somehow, too. But seeing this in post for a week is one thing, and integrating it into frontends by default is another. From the single post perspective the most valuable data would be the biggest drains, meaning accounts who powered-down the most of the money earned by posting.
I'll write the entire post regarding this idea and more, it's bouncing in my mind for last weeks.
For a certain list of users yes, say the top 1000, but not for all of them :)
Yes, especialy those who publishes (authors) and get author rewards. Top 1000 will be fine. May be even top 500 (or even top 100!) will be okay, but can we separate them into communities? I am particularly interested in:
Some of them are just communities/tags while others like POB and LEO have their native L2 token (so they need to be added somehow with the hive rewards).
*requests edit pointing bullets to actual links?
hearing that... i love 'the work' - i just dont have anyone requesting of me, and the stuff ppl want is generally as simple as a slice of code ( i say slice, but that could be 3000 lines long ) as opposed to actual sleuthing, etc XD
You mean, "viral Hive content" that gains no traction outside of a small handful of people on this platform?
Gosh, I would rather @pressfortruth gain more recognition than the stuff posted around here.
Yes “viral hive content” :)
I liked the suggestion you made to my original idea on this point. "I think it would be possible to take the downvote curation reward penalty only from those upvotes chronologically before the downvote, so upvotes to counter the downvote wouldn't be penalized."
Not sure exactly how we get there, but my point remains. If you get diluted by taking action, very few, if any, will take that action. It helped a lot with DVs. While I agree we need more healthy DVs on the most post, it's rare to get a post on web2 without a downvote. It's just people need to adjust the downvote size, or it causes harm. No need to zero out a post from someone legit every time they post to the chain. So it would be nice to find a way not to be diluted when trying to find equilibrium with the token distribution.
I saw a comment here I forgot who from about a possible inflation reward pool for DVs. Meaning if you don't use the DVs, you miss out on rewards. I believe nudging good people to use downvotes will be very healthy. It's ok to do a small/normal size downvote in relation to the post rewards if you disagree. And if we had a more balanced healthy DV system, we would see much more competition for the rewards. Obv this would also help "bad" downvoters, so my point above remains. Maybe a mix of both, one to encourage healthy DVs and one to help counter overhanded ones.
You probably have problems locating that comment because it is hidden as it came from a shadow-banned account.
As for the above post - I do not see why an "UV to counter DV" should be treated more favourably than a regular UV.
The technical part is interesting as my proposition also has to deal with DVs going past the zero threshold (it would be too easy to park $20 worth of your DV mana on a $0.01 post) AND allow these to still be upvoted back to positive numbers.
Downvotes spread more widely would indeed help with some cases, since then getting downvotes would not be so devastating to rewards (most content would have some so the zero-sum aspect would mean it would tend to balance out some).
Though it still wouldn't help with these "downvoted to zero" situations. Again, people have to accept that in a voted-reward system, highly controversial content with a lot of disagreement won't do well on rewards. We don't (for the most part, though front ends do hard block child porn, etc.) censor it, but we won't reward it either.
Layer two where a narrower subcommunity (i.e. with less disagreement on some things) can decide differently about what it wants to reward is probably the best solution.
Imagine an economy where you had the option to EITHER give performers a tip OR take a tip from a performer.
Now imagine that when you take a tip from a performer, they're tip gets "redistributed" to the remaining performers, with the largest share going to the performers who earn the most tips.
Small performers will be heckled because there is no fear of retaliation.
Large performers will always reap the majority of the rewards kicked out of the hats of the smaller performers.
In the end, you're simply reinforcing an anti-competitive environment where the big fish use their position to only allow performances they personally approve of.
Sure, there may be some legitimately "bad actors" - but even they deserve some pretense of a FAIR public trial and some reasonable path to redemption.
Secret DISCORD kangaroo courts do not meet this standard.
Or maybe just cut the FREE downvotes in half.
That way, if people have equal stake, it takes TWO people downvoting in order to ZERO them out.
Isn't the whole theory of downvoting supposed to be some sort of "community consensus" anyway ?