You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Negative Voting and Steem

in #steem8 years ago (edited)

@berniesanders, since whales of a certain SP can now scale the size of their own reward to give somebody, the reason you use - that a post might be making too much money - seems completely irrational.

Here's Why.

Let's say as this post starts creeping up to the payout, it's $ value has reached over 10K. Let's pretend both you and another whale have the power to bring this reward all the way back to $0.00
(Not that you would)
Well the 2 of you decide individually that the post isn't worth 10K but you have different ideas of what it should be worth. This other whale, let's call him berniesanders2, decides that the post is closer in value to 5K. But you disagree. You believe it's worth only $500.

With your new scaling powers you can decide exactly how much reward the post gets. Except another whale could have the exact same overvaluation of his own opinion.

Whichever one of you votes second, is overruling the decision of the first

even though the decision didn't belong to either of you in the first place!

You only get to decide how much you contribute. Everybody collectively gets to decide how much it's worth!

We all hold a stake @berniesanders. Our tiny minnow votes count too.