Just because "downvoted due to disagreement on rewards" was a thing that Steem/Hive put in their "whitepaper/blue paper" doesn't make it a valid thing to do.
Why not? Say price of Hive goes to $10, do you expect people to make $1k-$5k per post? Let maximizers and lazy autovoters just keep at it when there's a lot more users that have joined and are earning close to nothing? Or would you attempt to make it a little bit more fair, pressure the autovoters to distribute their votes a bit more and give the authors fairer rewards than the unrealistic sustainability we witnessed back in 2018 with $10+ sbd prices or the still ongoing problem you can quickly notice on the corrupted chain where it's the same 10 people trending constantly, making thousands per garbage posts while the rest are being sold or abused.
Downvoting for disagreement of rewards is perfectly valid. You complaining about it doesn't change that fact that it helps distribution, something I've worked on the past 5 years. If we had had downvote mana during the Haejin times we would've had a much better distribution today with way more dolphins and orca's that decided to continue staying staked and ride this journey. I don't want to see something like that again and this whole stigma of downvotes as if all downvotes are bad, it's ridiculous in my opinion.
Haejin and Rancho are totally different than most DV scenarios that are happening lately. They were doing 10 posts a day of nonsense TA which is all bunk analysis. TA is tarot card reading.
Also, almost every post made on LeoFinance is also trash and I dont think I've ever seen their stuff downvoted, their community has a lot of haejin minded people posting number go up nonsense.
A few bad actors always upvoting themselves and selling it eventually they dilute themselves and the problem solves itself without downvoting, though its slower.
Steem covered this fallacy of "everyone earns" in their white paper, stating that most people will join here hoping to earn and it's not possible and that they are hopelessly wasting their time on something that wont happen.
Same thing happens on any platform.
All the people flocking to onlyfans wont earn almost anything ever, or new streamers signing up to twitch almost none will make more than 100 bucks ever. Systems always reward the first and the most skilled who are in early, extremely rare for a new comer to be able to earn. It's just not how this system is setup nor others.
Increasing inflation by a higher amount would change that, hives inflation needs to be 10xed or 20xed. The bandaid is dving when what we need is higher inflation to fix everything
How do they dilute themselves without downvotes?
Your onlyfans/twitch comparisons aren't good. We have thousands of accounts being able to reward anyone they want with votes, tips, subscriptions (recurring payments), etc. On those other platforms they all just flock to where the majority is, the big influencers earn most of the rewards, there's no incentive to go look for smaller ones. You're literally making my point more valid that those who earn too much should receive some downvotes so everyone else makes more, thanks.
If an account sells any of their earnings they have less overall power in terms of the % owned.
If you have 1mil hp, earn 100k hp in a year, sell 50k in the year, you have less % of the overall hp now. The only way to not lose % is to keep powered up.
Over time everyone who sells gets diluted slowly.
In year 5 you might have .5% of total hp and selling some now in year 6 you have .485% of total hp. In year 10 you might have .42%
The inflation is too slow to correct for the initial distribution, so the inflation being higher could fix that problem, while also keeping the price low so that people dont make too much on over voted posts
Ah, thought you were talking about selling votes off-chain. It'd only be the author diluting himself in that case while the voter earngs more, content wouldn't be fairly rewarded in terms of pob and that's another reason why downvotes are needed.
I think we could fix most of hives issues in a year or two if the inflation was raised, even if temporary, with an emphasis on smaller accounts being able to get a bonus when voted on. This would require some sort of snapshot and a master list compiled so that it only gave the bonus to real people who are currently posting
Yeah it's too complicated for implementation probably, one can dream
Well, anyone who votes dilutes their % when they sell the earnings, or if someone never votes their stake is diluted each year due to inflation as well.
To keep .5% of total hp, an account would have to never sell. Anytime they sell anything the % goes down. It does take a lot longer that way to dilute of course.