If downvotes get their own pool, it will be the end of content.
Over the past year I have spent every day (I think I may have missed 2 total) actually looking at and voting on funny posts. I have rented SP to use on these posts, have recruited some accounts to follow my voting trail and have spent quite a bit of time each day on this.
If there is a separate downvote pool, I will spend zero seconds on this. I would have to be insane to spend any time on curating when there is a very strong possibility that someone will just come by and flag the posts I choose or my own post I make in order to help pay for the rental of SP.
The only safe/flag proof way to interact with the platform will be to not interact with the platform and just sell my SP to a bid bot. I would imagine it won't take long for the few others who actually care about content to figure that out and do the same.
I don't mind losing money. I do mind losing my time. There is no way in hell I would lose both.
The Curse of Decentralization then. So many perspectives and nobody or policy can satisfy everyone. I look at the separate downvote pool and the only thing I see is a stocked rifle meant solely for killing off spam. I will be dumb not to admit there's the possibility of an uprising screaming "how the hell do one get $10 for a gif!" and thus click the red flag.
No matter what gives, I will keep rooting for policies that always tend towards the midpoint of everyone's general satisfaction.
It sure would be great if that loaded rifle were used to do good things for good content and the platform. Just like it sure would be great if people used their upvotes for good content and the platform. That simply does not happen. It is absolutely silly to believe that the same people who use upvotes to only benefit themselves will use downvotes to help others. They will do the exact same thing with downvotes that they do with upvotes, use them to benefit themselves. Except in this case they will fill the platform with negativity and make it impossible for the few people who actually care to do any good. At least right now, no one is stopping curators who care from assigning rewards to quality content. That will change if there is no financial cost for downvotes.
A big obstacle on this platform is that we never know how a proposal will turn out until will test it.
The only hindsight we've had at any juncture, is taking what's currently happening and using to predict what will likely happen.
As a result, you're very much correct when you say people will continue to use it to their advantage.
It also means not everyone will abuse the downvote pool. The ones who're currently using upvotes for the betterment of this platform will also use downvotes for the same cause.
Other than using downvotes for whale-fightings, the JerryBanfields of Steem and spammy contents, I have never come across a scenario where well known/well established content curators/curation movements get flagged.
But again no matter how many years one spends on this blockchain, it remains an unknown beast.
But isn't the exact problem you are talking about? Not enough people are using their upvotes to help the platform and content. Why would anyone believe there would be enough people using downvotes to help content and the platform?
The reason you have "never come across a scenario where well known/well established content curators/curation movements get flagged" is because it takes money out of the pockets of the self centered people in order to flag. They can choose to vote themselves or they can choose to flag. Not both. Unless of course you give them a separate pool of flags that does not hurt their earning power.
And is it really the established content creators who need protection or is it new people starting out who could possible bring great value but they never get a chance?
Right now the self centered people have a way to help themselves and indirectly hurt others. A separate pool gives them a way to help themselves, indirectly hurt others and directly hurt others.
You are correct that it is impossible to tell unless you try. It might work. But then again monkeys might fly out of my butt.
I can see it being abused. People already buy votes and push other content producers aside and out of sight, so I have trouble seeing these people start caring about others with free flags to use.
I like the 50/50 though. People say it means the ones selling votes will earn more. Well, yeah, so why buy the vote? Who's going to buy votes if it always means a loss for buyers? How will vote sellers "earn more" if there's no demand to buy votes? If a content producer is set up to earn more, organically, why, in the actual fuck, would they waste money on vote dealers?
A content producer today loses potential views and money, therefore wasting time producing content, due to simpletons purchasing votes. I'm sure you've noticed a few thousand leave since you've been here. I have trouble finding reasons to stick around, but I do, because I'm crazy. Those who left, I get it. You curate, I curate. Our efforts should be helping people. The moment I vote for someone who needs it, their content gets buried by a shitpost promoted by charlatans who don't care about anything or anyone and holy fuck I'm sorry for this rant.