Not really, not if you don't want to spend time on curating posts, or if you want to get more rewards by creating "no content" posts, then upvoting them at the last minute. Such behavior is obviously bad for the overall value of the currency, of course, but that's not always a sufficient deterrent.
Especially in the case where someone controls the posting key for a large account, but doesn't have the active key, so they can never power down the stake. In such a case, they are incentivized to get rewards via author rewards of accounts they control as an indirect means of getting rewards for the stake held in the account.
Unfortunately, we have had plenty of people that think too small to consider the overall value of the currency but are more fixated on getting ahead themselves relative to others.
I haven't assessed the situation lately but hopefully things have changed.
From what I've seen, things are much better in that respect nowadays, but I suppose there will always be such people. So the best thing to do is try to define a set of blockchain rules that limit such abuses as much as possible.
I don't believe I've ever met a charitable libertarian or anarchist, and we seem to be lousy with both.
I believe it's important that any RULES are universal, applying to every account equally, and not "special cases" or "based on the whim of the appointed enforcers".
I'm pretty sure the "human-contentment and empathy" problem is not unique to this particular case.
Even most "charitable organizations" only use 11% of their donations to "help" anyone.
The other 89% they keep for themselves, and that ends up being a pretty effective business model, especially when you can get FREE LABOR from naive VOLUNTEERS.
i did not think of the second scenario that makes sense. now i get the situation. ty
still against it. it attacks the power balance . imo i think is a step back.
It favors downvotes over upvotes, which I presume is what you mean by it attacks the power balance (i.e. it changes the power balance between upvotes and downvotes).
But I think this is a good change in that balance, because payouts to a post are "irreversible". Whereas if a post gets downvoted in a way that other stakeholders feel is unfair, a followup post can be made and stakeholders have a further chance to adjust the payout to the author "after the fact". In fact, we've seen this done before many times in the past, when the community decided that a downvoter was acting unfairly.
On the other hand, there's no way to reverse a payment once it's made, so last minute voting that results in a post payout that most people disagree with, can't be adjusted.
As a side note, downvoting doesn't decrease the amount of rewards paid out by Hive, it only distributes those rewards away from the downvoted post to other active posts and comments. I think this is worth mentioning, since I'm not sure how many people know this.