They are going to flag my wallet back to themselves?
Downvotes are not a systemic problem on Hive.
They are an individual niche problem.
You are implying that there's a cabal on Hive that downvotes everyone and gives all the reward to themselves. That's very obviously not happening. Projecting a problem we or our friends having as a crippling systemic issue that everyone struggles with is not really valid logic.
Not my words, listen to the podcast at the indicated time.
This is direct from one of the 'leading lights' themselves.
It's not about flags, it's about making rewards non-transferable.
I didn't believe it myself, but there it is.
I did listen to it, twice, and that is not what I heard.
Now three times, you heard it wrong.
Listen to it again.
They are talking about the SPK network and the SIPs.
Dan and Matt would NEVER suggest that upvote reward should be frozen in place.
That logic runs contrary to the entire value proposition of Hive.
There are two podcasts in that post, are you listening to the top one?
#47
1:22:45
Must have been listening to the other one. Weird.
Meh, spitballing ideas is not a threat.
They can't all be winners.
It's not possible to freeze stake.
Accounts are transferrable.
Also delegations can be used to avoid downvotes.
Not a valid way to tame bad-actors.
Although I have pitched the idea of allowing users to permanently lock stake. There are situations where I would want to send liquid hive to someone and I want it to be permanently powered up when it gets to the destination.
This is just the kind of shit that people come up with during the bear market. People like Blocktrades are good at tuning out that kind of short-term noise. Devs would never implement something like that. It destroys the ability to fund things with upvotes.
Not to mention being done if you speak the wrong truth to the wrong power.
Seems like a control freak move to me.
I was shocked to have heard it, but even more shocked by the apathy from the people I've mention it to.
Nah it's a really bad idea and I would campaign against such a thing pretty hard if it were to get taken more seriously. It doesn't actually accomplish the things it's supposed to accomplish. If I got implemented I would immediately move to set up a system that allowed people to buy and sell accounts. I've already theory-crafted the idea under the name Love Handles. Something like this coming into play would move this from the back burner to the top of the list on shit that needs to get done. It is not possible to regulate value in this way on a decentralized platform.
Oh I forgot to tell you... I kept listening to that episode, and at 1:29 Matt goes into detail about the exact reasons why forcing locked stake would not work very well. Although I'm not sure if he even realizes that he's debunking what was just being talked about... maybe that's his sly little way of disagreeing without actively contesting the issue.