He's one person making his own decisions, which everyone should. It's a stakebased platform, get more stake and make bigger decisions. You're literally taking one weakness of the platform = not having KYC thus no 1 vote 1 user and trying to also concentrate their witness votes now into 1 user doing the decision for everyone trusting them with their witness vote. What your intentions to do with it are doesn't matter, you can change your ideals in 1 block and not everyone will be aware or decide to step out of it in time. Which went really, really bad for a lot of passive stakeholders when the biggest korean proxy tried to use it as leverage to get something both from the community and justin sun. I'm sure you were there and saw it happen so not sure why you'd attempt to do this again. Not that I read the full post but that's what it seems.
Either way, go away. I'm busy.
The proxy systems allows people to make their own decisions, including trusting that other people might have more time/focus available to research the subject than they do. They can easily come and remove the proxy at any moment if it is necessary. People proxying their votes is basically no different to an individual stakeholder voting - it's just that SOME of the thought process is distributed over more brains than just the single brain that would be involved without a proxy.
No, not at all. Not having KYC and not having 1 vote 1 user is essentially why we have DPOS stake weighted voting. This is the system we have, I am not really commenting on it per se - just using it in the same way everyone else is.
My ideals haven't changed in this regard since I was about 5 years old and that is clear to people who follow me and part of why they trust me. In any case, even if I suddenly give you a run for your money and try to be the downvote dominator king, it will be obvious and probably not take long before most people remove any proxy they give. By saying this is a problem you are basically saying that the stakeholders are lazy fools. If this were the case then they would be just as problematic whether they used a proxy or not.
Yes, stake can be misused, that's part of the point here all around. When stake is centralised into large accounts that dictate to the rest of the blockchain via downvote crusades, the community only has limited options to respond. Combining forces is the main one and proxies do that. If you want to go to the cause of the problem here, it is the downvoting patterns, not the community that wants to defend itself and create change. You seem to be totally unaware of how the logic you are using here is contradictory and missing the point over and over again.
Why aren't you building a curation account instead? Why witness votes?
Either way as I said I didn't read the post, just my thoughts on this new movement.
I'm pretty sure most people know I'm not a "downvote dominator king" by now, if downvote receivers weren't behaving like a bunch of dickheads I'd most likely counter downvotes I feel are too big and happening over a longer period of time, as I have been before and am doing now. But hey, it helps your narrative and using my vulgarity against me, so go ahead and best of luck. I'll be busy bringing some actual value to Hive which will hopefully generate content people actually read and may take the time to dispute if it's complete lunacy.
I've created accounts for over 500 people this week and still taken a lot of time from that to deal with entitled dickheads discussing downvotes. What you call a problem is you want people to get rewarded without repercussions from other people's stake no matter the content, effort or value you bring to Hive and that no one should be able to have a say against it because that equal's "censorship".
What you also call a problem really isn't, I spent 2 votes this week countering overdownvotes and it didn't cost me much. I was happy to do it and the person wasn't a complaining piece of shit yelling at the top of his lungs that he was being "censored", nor did he instantly turn his back on Hive and say he's going to purposely shit on it and tell everyone they shouldn't join Hive because him and a few others weren't getting what they wanted.
You really don't need to try to make it any more complicated than that, if you aren't a dickhead posting content people don't find value in or think it shouldn't be valued that much, you're most likely going to have others step in and help you against big downvotes.
As was pointed out by Dan at 3speak in our recent community chat, it isn't really possible for the community to rally to counter downvotes as long as the downvotes aren't easily visible. That is part of why I am going to make that possible soon and he has stated he has funds set aside just to counter the downvotes.
As far as people shitting on Hive goes - I only know of a small number and they aren't really on Hive any more.
Well I read it with my own eyes, probably someone you're defending while grouping me in with people who overdownvote in your post.
It doesn't sound like rocketscience to build a tool that notifies people when big downvotes occur late while filtering out hivewatchers or anti-abuse accounts like that so many can go and decide for themselves if they want to collectively counter said downvote and share the loss of ROI from that vote with each other until it's back to a realistic/fair reward.