RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)

[jelly13]

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.

Comments

[theycallmedan]

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.

[logiczombie]

Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.

No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.

[jaki01]

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.

[jaki01]

I do NOT want author and curators to receive the same amount.

That's why I thought you would mean or at least consider it:

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.

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.

[enforcer48]

It totally opens fun stuff like people parking their DVs on their alts or even self-DVing

Haha have a reverse burn post. Everyone park their downvotes there and create the most negative rep account there is.

[logiczombie]

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.

Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.

No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.

[logiczombie]

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.