If the powers that be deliver on these two, they can do whatever the heck they want. I don't care. Not one bit. I understand the moral standpoints you make, I try to empathise. Heck, I'm sure empaths and morally enclined holders could make a big rift in voting power. The market works both ways.
That aside. in an organic system like STEEMIT, this balance will be found. If the powers that be mess up and cause users to leave the platform, they lose on that vital content and on monetary gain as a result. The forces of the market are in control of this place. Will it be a moral market? A stone cold market? A balance? Time will tell. It's up to each of us to place a value on a post.
Sometimes a post could well be of more 'value' than an (arguably simple) meme that gets a nice $1000 of votes, but that's not a platform issue or a userbase issue, it's the market not catching up yet. Eventually, the bumps in the road will level out. Quality content will be king. A single "whale" will not make a dent on quality. No more than the forces of the market will let him or her. Going on a moral crusade against quality content for squelching reasons? It'll be an expensive squelch, considering the potential lost value that mismanagement brings.
what I describe is a special case. party A posts about party B, should the public see the assessment of everybody other than B, or everybody + B?
when B is a whale, he can literally cut the revenue in half or to zero, which for content not about B is the way it works. My point is should there be some sort of special case for this. I guess since we are allowed to upvote for ourselves, maybe to be symmetric it makes sense for B to be able to downvote.
I was just surprised that one downvote could cut the sizeable reward in half
No crusade here, just asking questions about a brand new system and possible improvements
Honestly, I'm here for two things.
1.) Content
2.) Money
If the powers that be deliver on these two, they can do whatever the heck they want. I don't care. Not one bit. I understand the moral standpoints you make, I try to empathise. Heck, I'm sure empaths and morally enclined holders could make a big rift in voting power. The market works both ways.
That aside. in an organic system like STEEMIT, this balance will be found. If the powers that be mess up and cause users to leave the platform, they lose on that vital content and on monetary gain as a result. The forces of the market are in control of this place. Will it be a moral market? A stone cold market? A balance? Time will tell. It's up to each of us to place a value on a post.
Sometimes a post could well be of more 'value' than an (arguably simple) meme that gets a nice $1000 of votes, but that's not a platform issue or a userbase issue, it's the market not catching up yet. Eventually, the bumps in the road will level out. Quality content will be king. A single "whale" will not make a dent on quality. No more than the forces of the market will let him or her. Going on a moral crusade against quality content for squelching reasons? It'll be an expensive squelch, considering the potential lost value that mismanagement brings.
what I describe is a special case. party A posts about party B, should the public see the assessment of everybody other than B, or everybody + B?
when B is a whale, he can literally cut the revenue in half or to zero, which for content not about B is the way it works. My point is should there be some sort of special case for this. I guess since we are allowed to upvote for ourselves, maybe to be symmetric it makes sense for B to be able to downvote.
I was just surprised that one downvote could cut the sizeable reward in half
No crusade here, just asking questions about a brand new system and possible improvements