I don't think trafalgar or smooth are in it for the greed, far from it. I see kevinwong as being frustrated and giving into the philosophy of Bakunin when it comes to electing poor judges and voting for the most corrupt characters so as not to prolong the immorality of the State and outrage the populous to act, whether he's doing it wittingly or not I do not know.
The suggestion of incentivized downvoting is a great one, but honestly, the whale experiment showed us one thing above all else: that major stakeholders care and in combining efforts they can make a big difference. I remember my vote went from less than a fraction of a cent to about 10 cents during that time. The community was very engaged despite the low price. This could happen again but the downvoting is not enough. If we dissuade stake splitting and incentivize stake concentration we will kill two birds with one stone: delegations wouldn't be as profitable under non-linear (n^1.2) as concentrating stake, and bidbots won't have any way to calculate the risk and rewards with certainty, while the later is great, the former is the most important I believe. Along with that, free downvotes ought to be delegated so in turn a large stake can crash without effort on anyone using bots and cancel that out. These changes are minimal in amending code and based on the whale experiment I think it will allow people to have a new-found appreciation for downvoting/flagging which could be done so that it won't affect anyone's reputation if the community delegates to an account with no reputation and preferable downvotes at the last moment before payout based on a curated list by a dedicated team that's kept off the chain to avoid any retaliation where people can post links to abuses and the team can update a database with them while the bot will do the rest.
Posted using Partiko Android
I don't know any of the top witnesses to know the motivations and can only base my conclusions on the affect the proposed 50/50 idea would have on my account and those I follow who have not been as fortunate as myself in finding support. It seems obvious to me that this would increase the take of those at the upper scale at the expense of those at the lower end. Perhaps it is not so obvious to those at the upper end, however I find it more credible that they do know it would increase their share of the pool and at whose expense it would be at. I saw another user (@glenalbrethsen) make a comment that summed up my feelings on this proposed reward cut they would have me receive.
As for the flagging, I will admit I have never been much of a flagger, only doing it to one person who has a grudge against canadiancoconut and familyprotection who couldn't stop trolling month after month. I will admit I am in a bubble here, having found my favorites for my feed and finding new people of interest from their comment sections. Which is how I found you as well. When I log in, it is more of a mind to read posts that interest me, curate them and when I am ready to post after researching to do that as well. And to support causes that I align with. I don't see myself changing this approach regardless of any proposed changes to the flagging system. I have enough people in my life who I oppose to desire seeking them out here. For me, there are enough blessings here to spend my time on. You being one of them. I appreciate your knowledge, even though at times it falls far into my ignorance zone. You are one I wish would post more on subjects as you have much you could share that deserve light stronger than in comment sections. You are one of the brightest I have encountered here on the platform.
You prefer a community flagging effort that is managed by a centralized off-chain dedicated team, than an automated in-chain algorithm that determines who is a bidbot and removing rewards for authors that get voted by them? Anyone who delegates to a flag account, will be known, and they can have retaliation applied to them. Applying a change to the code takes care of it without anyone needing to put a target on their back.