While I get the attempts to balance things out, it really isn't a good look for those on the outside looking in and those being hit by the down votes are kind of innocents caught in the cross fire.
On Hive, haejin/ranchorelaxo are finally voting other accounts, which was what everyone wanted back on Steem, but still the war goes on. So what are the demands now from these accounts?
@antisocialist has always been a big advocate for capping upvotes and it certainly seems like a good solution. It would stop over rewarding in the first place, negating the need for downvoting and spread rewards back across the board.
It's a big step for those that take it, but I think the ecosystem will be better served.
It gives a target for new investors to shoot for while knowing that the early birds want to share with them, and not just dilute them as they exit.
If the 33 accounts with more than 1000mv voted their full 'entitlement' nobody would be playing this game, so it's not like they don't already exercise some constraint.
The question is do 'we' want to continue to circle these central points, or do we want the coin in more hands?
Do we want to attract newbs, or just payout those with the most until nobody buys in, anymore?
Clearly, after this many years, if their approach was going to attract those willing to build an audience here, we'd see some of those rather than most of the folks they favored having cashed out.
It's only a matter of time before the broader market figures out that we have no fees and all the features of nearly all the chains out there.
When that happens this drama will take a backseat to the rocket launch, imo.
We can thank Ned's capitulation that we don't already dominate the scene.
A little sticktoitiveness from that guy and he could now walk among us as a god.
But, nope.
Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
There's no ideal solution and I am sorry for those who feel they have been attacked for something they didn't do. It seems the rancho vote will not go away and we have not control over how it gets used/abused. I was just trying to say that losing a vote you might not normally have had is no reason to quit. It might help if people said why they downvoted.
!ENGAGE 20
It's a step forward that rancho is at least voting more than one account.
No solution will ever be perfect, but AS's has been the the best suggestion so far. I believe a trial was actually done in the early days of Steem and it looked promising when it came to distributing the coin among others more. I hadn't thought before reading you post that it could help in this situation too, though.
Yes, a note about why a dv was done would certainly help.
Recently I was trying to calm someone who regularly earns decent reward for their posts and had a rancho vote (not a regular occurrence there and this was only one of three) trimmed, so they didn't really need to kick up the fuss they did. UVM usually only gets a few dollars per post, however, so I would have said a trim wasn't really necessary in her case and can see her point more.
As I said, though, it would be preferable not to have to trim in this way in the first place. Cap the mv amount and the rewards have to be spread further anyway.
Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
ENGAGEtokens.