Yes, I follow you.
And, yes, you are correct in that, under the current 'code' the only way to combat malicious DV'ing is by enlisting whale accounts to enter into a DV war with the 'abusing' account. Because DVs cost nothing, they can be used with impunity, forever, unless and until there is a genuine penalty brought to bare against the abuser.
The problem then becomes, a whale penalizing an abuser could then be labeled (by someone sympathetic to the abuser) as abusing the abuser.
So, it's hard to see where this sorts itself out.
BTW, I am definitely open to creative solutions, especially on Layer 2, where they can be tried and tested and easily reverted if things don't go as expected.
Telling bullshit about a lot of free people is a form of abuse!
Best regards.
I agree (sort of). If downvotes become universally utilized to their maximum potential by everyone, then it simply becomes an inverse vote. However, the challenge then becomes how to maintain curation rewards. Because the DV can be sniped against a nemesis just before payout (to maximize the effective penalty), but the upvote cannot (well, it can, but at a greatly reduced curation percentage).
So, it ultimately becomes a battle of DV bots, and incentivizes the average user (author and curator) to figure out how to avoid the DVs (by not making anyone angry, and by not getting 'upvotes' from accounts with a hefty DV following them).
Hive becomes a Mad Max style lawlessness, where warlords fight each other and average folks just try to keep their heads down and stay out of the line of fire.
I fail to see how that ends up being positive or beneficial.