I hate to sound like a broken record but since you elected to push this thread to Trending, I am going to take a shot at a little exposure.
The principal problem is the lack of counter-upvotes. These cost money. Upvoting stuff that was (will be DVed) hurts your investment. Your HP is going to earn less. For 99% of accounts, it makes no financial sense to protect the value of the platform that way. Among the top 1%, it might make sense but other business models are viable. That is why I pitched the DV incentivisation plan. Having more DVs in the system is a side-effect. The primary motivation is to allow people UV someone that is being nuked without losing money off their own pocket.
what would solve it would be "anon" dvs + a counter that doesn't dilute the counterer at the very least, maybe incentivize negative curation as its arguable just as important as positive curation. anon dvs would require some sort of zero knowledge proofs which could be pretty costly to have developed. not impossible tho.
kindly vote me one time plz
ya i totally forgot about your idea, i have to theory this more. but in essence, you're right. My idea was to at least remove the penalty for reversing a "bad" dv. if it cost money to be good, good luck having people be good. But the idea of incentivizing is pretty wild at first thought, but I don't hate it, It could actually work but cant say for sure yet. gnna jote this in Grammarly so i don't forget.
btw why did ur acct get nuked? has to be a story there