I have no recollection of anyone saying that the cause of the downvotes was high votes from whales. I think if that was publicly stated there would be a lot of upset people - so even if that was your policy, I can see why it wouldn't have been spoken on-chain.
I coded an app that tracks downvotes, so I am familiar with the downvote patterns and how they have changed over time. I can point to many whales weren't/aren't downvoted for giving large votes (even to themselves or their own projects). If I'd have known that your policy at Curangel was to downvote because large whales were upvoting, then I would have gone in a completely different direction.
With regards to the decentralisation of distribution of rewards and governance tokens, I agree that that is an important element within curation. However, as always - in all things in life - there is a balance to be found.
Whether any of us like it or not, the reality is that a huge amount of the 'imaginary money' in the world is in the hands of a small % of people. If they want to they can and will (already have multiple times) take steps to try to shut down decentralised systems that they perceive to threaten their domination. I know first hand that this is not a theory, it is carefully calculated by some of them.
It's fine to say 'I am going to be the one to step in and to redistribute the wealth', however, this has never really succeeded in human history without it also triggering massive harm. In general, I see the futility of capitalism and monetary systems, they are not what humans really need - but on the other hand, without significant evolution of the heart and minds of humans, we are stuck with it as 'the best there is'.
With that in mind, it is essential to handle large stakeholders in the best possible way, since they are the ones with the most ability to fuel the decentralisation of governance - by funding the system and attracting more people who seek rewards. There will be no point in decentralising governance if the system has almost no monetary value because the large stakeholders leave. How can people successfully draw in large investors into a world where they get slapped and abused just for operating as the system was intended to operate?
There genuinely are numerous wealthy people who are actively looking to support (decentralised) projects that help the world. Setting a blanket policy of preventing them from using their stake as they prefer is likely to be stunting Hive's growth significantly. Beyond the large stakeholders themselves, there are many people who see that kind of behaviour and automatically label it 'communist' and 'enemy'. Whether you or I think their attitude is smart or not makes no difference - they will avoid Hive and are also likely to actively spread negative PR about Hive too (I have seen it numerous times).
My profession at this time sits between system design, development and marketing - bridging systems and human beings in order to accelerate project growth. I am saying all of this not with any kind of ulterior motive or bias - to me these are just facts that I have learned over the years and which are important in the context of Hive's development, growth and success.
I just want you to consider that there is more to this situation than you may have been noticing. Hive has never come close to Steem's growth during the early days when it was attractive to large investors who value anarcho-capitalist ideology and I am pretty confident that that is significantly due to the switch away from anarcho-capitalism here to something else that resembles socialism from the perspective of 'proof of brain'.
Punishing people for offering large rewards to people suggests the death of proof of brain and for me personally it kills the major selling point of Hive up until now. I value the idea of proof of brain (meaning that the 'subjectively best' ideas get more visibility, powered by stake weighted voting). Its never been perfect, but it is exciting and a fun way to interact and share information. If we prevent the free flow of (subjectively selected) large upvotes, we prevent the visibility desired by the community and we therefore limit the free flow of information.
Depending on your definitions, you may or may not choose to see this as censorship, but please don't deny reality by refusing to acknowledge that a large % of the population DOES see this as censorship - to the point that they would rather stay on X and Facebook than come here. They know that those who receive the most money are both the most visible and also are freed to create more content and to grow - therefore acting to limit this process fits in with the main dictionary definition of censorship.
Coming back to Azircon and Curangel: I tried my best to understand the situation back then by speaking to you and Azircon. From you I got immediate anger and scorn, with no insights or explanation. From Azircon I got a mixture of obtuseness, denial and abuse. There was never any suggestion of how to resolve the situation in any way other than me leaving the blockchain. You say that you were not responsible for that and its true in as much as Azircon was the person mostly acting - however, you continue to say that there was really no problem with his voting, except he went too far and was not monitored (which seems to have been your responsibility).
I wish that this situation made more sense to me and I am trying to understand your perspective. I hope you can appreciate that to a new user or an outside observer, trying to control the behaviours of others with large downvotes, with no explanation at all (or way for them to remedy the situation), really just looks like an even worse version of what happens on Web 2 sites.
One of the most ridiculous parts of Hive is that the mechanism that runs it is complicated and yet it is almost never explained in a useful way. The heavy downvotes are one aspect that focuses this massive lack of explanation for average users and that will always give Hive a bad name and attract negative press (among the few people that even bother to look at all).
I can talk about all this for a very long time. However, I want to conclude on this by saying that in my mind, the liberation and free use of money that was visible on Steem in the early days is part of why it reached number 3 in the global market cap, which in turn enabled many people to consider helping out to grow it and to receive funds for doing so. The spirit of creative freedom is not so visible to me on Hive and I feel it needs to be re-evaluated and re-integrated. Part of that is letting people be themselves and not trying to crush them.
Coming back to my witness voting, one of the reasons that I don't vote for many people is that so few people impress me in any way. I even once invited all witnesses to just state publicly that they support free speech and I would vote for them. Almost no-one responded, which saddened me and caused me to be sceptical of the intentions of all witnesses more than I would like.
If I were to vote as I actually want to vote, I would unvote a few people and you would probably go into the top 20 by default even without me voting for you. I may do that in the spirit of evolution, plus of creating productivity and peace - but I will also be forced to undo that change if I see account nuking from Curangel again. I will also do what I can to stop any big stakeholders from doing such nuking, but there aren't many that try to do it.
I am painfully aware that there is a large gap on Hive when it comes to understanding of market psychology, digital marketing strategy and the opportunities/threats facing Hive. I am planning to launch a project soon that aims to use scientific market research and analysis processes to help elevate the thinking that currently drives Hive away from a mish-mash of opinions and towards a more data driven trajectory.
It is my wish that with greater clarity, more data and feedback from all available sources, the community can reduce the amount of internal clashes and increase its collaboration, communication, effectiveness and success. Your support on that is welcome, if you like.
Who knew downvotes were a viable strategy to get into the top 20? lol
They are a viable strategy to get held out of the top 20, that's for sure 😃
That would be appreciated. I might just turn the downvoting side of curangel off then, and leave the anti-abuse to others. Too big of a risk to downvote someone you or other big stakeholders have issues with, and while I feel it's still necessary it has brough me myself nothing but trouble and annoying discussions that seldomly were resolved positively.