What will happen on Steem will, but I think if the utility moves mostly over to hive that does not help the situation on Steem combined with the willy billy nature of Justin.
You mention the downvote pressure etc, what I would really like to see are proper stats on these things. We have an entire chain history with a lot of actions we wish to adapt or change surely these things can be plotted and changes we want to test simulated through the historical data. Things like having stake not have such an ultimate say etc.
@Crimsonclad was being her sensible self and made a comment about how seeing as we have no actual say in the SPS or whatever that fund thing is the smaller accounts should show a united front for the ones they believe are undervalued and appeal to the big stakeholder to support these projects we also see value in other than the half-assed brief proposals that are top now. Obviously I am paraphrasing :)
Standards and guidelines need to be put in place across the board, and things like botting, "circle jerk" need to be defined. If only in writing , guidelines on how effectively to vote like if you know the account has a lot of stake, they repeat post the same type of crap then why the fuck even vote them another $20 ontop of an already very gracious $10 ... Obviously we can't tell people where to vote until such algorithms for repeat frequency and proximity maybe enforce that those who already get a lot all the damn time for the same damn shit would ensure that it evens out. Very rudimentary description but hopefully you know what I mean. So more stances on how to approach such things would at the very least inform people to think about how they vote. I don't think this place need follow the same mentality as the world where if it is popular then let us make it more popular and fuck everything else.
Oh I was talking about what crimson said... It makes sense to appeal to the bigger stake but that still leaves a broken governance system sps or witness wise whatever. You will always have unreasonable people and many of them own the most stake or could acquire, there needs to be some cap. It seems to me the chain assumes humans act logically but the chain and the decisions we build into it needs to assume that the user is a security risk and actions they take are not in the best interest of all. Now all of this shit I wrote is scatter brained but I think just saying "curbing reward pool abuse" refers to "spammers" blah blah. This needs to be looked at on all levels from high to low and treated as such hopefully through the code and maybe through patterns we can gather by simulating history.
I appreciate the verbose reply ;)
This will be a bit difficult, as you have seen a centralized entity do that on our sister chain and actually enforce it. Who gets to decide?
I agree we could have more measures in place to emphasize the lower stake votes. That's a fine line to walk, but I think measures such as drastically dropping the number of witness votes down from 30 are a great start.
It's been only two days, but I agree, the battle for HIVE's success has just started.
Must admit I did not grasp well all of the comment. Still, I think your encouragement of using a statistic measures of historic patterns of bad behavior on Steem is a great idea. It could be a great tool that might do well to help avoid making the same mistakes here.