In principle I agree - however, reading the white paper for steem, it is clear that the intended design is for 'whales' to downvote content that imbalances the system. Whether or not this profile or others like it are imbalancing the system, therefore comes down to those with the most SP. If everyone only considers existential threat relative to their own existence, then no such downvoting will take place until the account in question becomes super massive. In short, the existential threat in such cases (in the context of steemit) is mostly to the smaller accounts who lose out the most - so they need to come together to act as a whale.. However, just as in offline reality - there are too many pointless disagreements and too little co-operation - in general - for that to occur significantly. Also, I think I'm right to say that downvotes use up vote power, so a downvote is a loss of payout for self and other more positive posts.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'm certainly willing to withhold judgement on this. And, BTW, by existential threat I was referring to the community here.
As for the whitepaper and whales being charged with the responsibility of taking on a moderator like position in this way. Again, I'm willing to hold out on judging whether or not that's a good idea. It's a pretty different way of doing things than I've seen before. Maybe the fact that the whales have to make a sacrifice in order to exercise that power is an appropriate way to go about this. My mind remains open.
Thanks for your perspective, it really gives me food for thought.