Nobody has the right to decide what the overall value of a post is worth here, that would be centralized BS which does not belong in the decentralized world. @ned needs to re-think what "decentralized" really represents to the majority of blockchain users / investors, before he shoots his latest project in the foot.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is the first time I've seen @ned vote this way. On the other hand I've seen flags come from @smooth, @berniesanders & @steemed all claiming to be redistributing the rewards more evenly by flagging the post because it wasn't worth what it was valued at. I had your frame of mind before but after realising that a flag is at a cost to the curator who could have used that vote to seek curation rewards, it's just a natural part of the system. You feel like your vote isn't counted but the fact is, your vote is just much smaller so the opinion of those with a bigger vote than yours wins. That is still decentralised because they paid for that power and everyone can just as easily pay for or earn the power to manipulate what makes the front page.
Refer to my other response above.
A founder having the HUGE voting power @ned has should not be flagging because they think all the other voters over-valued a post. That's a dictatorship, not a decentralized system where every user's vote counts. I agree if it was a whale not associated with the founders it is a natural occurrence. When a founding team member does this though, it's a dictatorship, plain and simple.
So lets say dan and ned and any of their employees stop voting. You think it would be decentralised then? The budget stays the same so in fact if they stopped voting the power would just move down to the next in line. Which would mean blocktrades (according to steemwhales) would become the new dictator. Because his vote would now be the most powerful. (That is, if this were a dictatorship as you call it)
My concern isn't with anything other than a whale founding member's account not voting "with" the majority of the community on average (per-user voted upon...in this case @masteryoda). The HUNDREDS of upvotes @masteryoda received from the community were continually wiped out per-post by ONE founding member whale. That is centralization because they founded the system. I actually am fine with a non-founder whale doing whatever they want, but it makes me concerned when a founding member wipes out hundreds of community member's votes with one click more than once on the same community member.