Your community's 'business model' does go counter to the 'Proof of Brain' concept which old schoolers like @Acidyo would still, most likely, adhere to. The whole downvoting mechanism needs rework in my opinion; yet until such time your community's actions should expect 'Proof of Brain' to be defended even in these days of AI generated content due to its actions going counter to the 'Proof of Brain' concept.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Good reasoning, but I'd counter it with this: if the community of delegators as a whole agrees with the content that is being voted upon, as well as the amount that is earned, then isn't that still consistent with proof of brain? A possible exception would be if the centralized system goes against the direct interest of its delegators (i.e. upvoting content that the delegators do not want upvoted) - to my understanding, that would be counter to proof of brain, but then can be solved by undelegating.
(If I'm wrong, please do correct!)
My understanding was that if one delegates to the @freecompliments account then they will, in turn, get their content upvoted. That does not factor in the consensus of other delegators by my understanding. Bot voting services of old, on STEEM, ran up against similar opposition in the past. They were run by such witnesses as @therealwolf if memory serves; so this disagreement exists at the highest level of the HIVE food chain.
My feeling is that the real solution would be to rework the downvoting system so that one voice cannot cripple an account or project but simply lend a strong voice for others to join so as to get more of a consensus on the matter.
This is not correct because I'm not a delegation project. I'm someone who uses the delegation projects, which is what the primary gripe was about. He chose to downvote me, and subsequently the community, because I delegate to these projects.