Hadn't fully thought about the implications of a rogue/naughty whale running about. My original assumption was that whales are invested in the platform and should act in a way that would protect their investment. But what if a whale bought in simply to try and destroy the platform and profit from shorts (a kind of DAO scenario)? Or what if a whale had the community turn against them and they decided to just vote poorly out of spite?
With the new reputation system, I bet @dan and @ned could come up with a way to use it against "killer whales." If a whale starts acting maliciously, what if there was a way to flag their "vote reputation?"
But then again, this could cause people to start creating bots to try and rig people's voting power... Definitely a tricky predicament to solve.
Statements like this give me pause. first, as ive said in other comments, you havent really defined an "evil whale" except as someone thats voting in a way that ned and dan don't approve of.
Second, youre talking about using the reputation system... so ned and dan can make sure everyone is voting the way they want? There's an easier way to do that, simply take away voting.
I defined an evil whale by example:
"But what if a whale bought in simply to try and destroy the platform and profit from shorts (a kind of DAO scenario)? Or what if a whale had the community turn against them and they decided to just vote poorly out of spite?"
Um. Where did I say this??
You are grossly misquoting me and adding your own words to mine. My point of concern is that if a "killer whale" were to start voting maliciously, the current counter-measure is to just vote opposite to them. But this requires other whales to monitor their account, or a large enough group of minnows. Perhaps this might work and is the intended function, all I was doing was throwing another idea out there.
Interesting. let me come back to that.
well, one would only assume that if ned and dan are using the reuptation to sabatoge this person, they have decided that they think the way he is voting is destructive right.
I didnt quote you, i merely anticipated your answer to my first question, and based my response on that.
You have been kind enough to give me your definition of an evil whale. The basis of your definition is intent. State of mind. So what defines an evil whale is what he has in his head when he votes. Not the vote itself, but the reason behind the vote. EIther its spite or a desire to profit by destroying the platform.
It should be taken as a given that this reason can not be determined objectively through obervation. I can't look at, for example, bernie sanders vote on the DV and know for certain what the motivation behind casting his vote was. Even if he states his reasons (he did), there is no way to be sure he is being honest. Worse, there is nothing i can really use to infer the voters intentions except the vote itself.
So at the end of the day you have ned and dan, using the reputation system against other whales who vote "maliciously" because they looked at how he voted and determined that res ipsa loquiter the vote must have been cast maliciously.
But why stop at whales. Why not simply tweak the system so that the can use it against anyone who votes in a way they deem malicious. After all whales shouldn't have less rights than anyone else.
Great reply. I agree with your concerns that this could lead to censorship based on certain users determining what is acceptable voting and what isn't. I'm happy to concede a point if someone demonstrates the fallacy of it.
they should leave it as is freedom of speech... a whale has equal rights as another user...
they lucky they joined early... and that's all.... maybe @dan and @ned could make it that the higher the level the more less the rewards and voting power are... that's the only way to keep balance....