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]

I am not really sure what your method calculates as the description is too comprimed for me. I am picking the most readable part and expect you to elaborate in case I read it wrong / drew wrong conclusions.

author and curators receive altogether the same amount.

I do NOT want author and curators to receive the same amount. That is what happens right now and that is the exact reason the DVing is OP.

A post that gets 95 worth of downvotes and 105 worth of upvotes pays out 10 total (5 author, 5 curators combined). The vision is to pay out 105 total - assign 105+95=200 from DAO, pay out (105-95)/2=5 to author, (105+95)/2=100 to curators and return the balance (95) back to DAO.

That way, upvoting a post that has (is going to have) DVs on it pays out full curation reward. Not 5/105=5 % of the par reward like Hive 25.0 does (easily reachable via UVing something noone reads / bothers to DV)

That is Step 1 (letting people know they can UV someone that is under a deplatforming attack). More tweaks are necessary in order to get a good value discovery, but the above is an improvement to the current system on its own.

Comments

[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.