It seems there are monetary benefits on upvoting posts and only negative effects on downvoting. Have I misunderstood something?
If I understand correctly, the "value" of a post is based on the net positive votes the post gets. And the voters are the curators who get their share of the value. This is based partly on this story here: https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/how-to-interpret-steemits-post-valuations
So why would anyone interested in their steem dollars ever downvote any post?
I am sure everyone can see the potential problems for steemit if this is true.
Whales want the platform to succeed, so they'll downvote content that they think lowers the value of the platform. Here's an example. :D
You see that @dantheman upvoted you :-)
Yes :D
Crabs downvote because that's what crabs do. Their incentive is the good feeling they get when they stop someone else from getting something undeserved.
I don't need monetary incentive to downvote spam. I don't want to see that stuff on here, that's enough for a reason.
I should have emphasized on my post that I meant strictly economically speaking. That aspect will surely be very relevant to many users and as someone else already said, people might upvote the so-called "Kim Kardashian of posts" simply in the belief most others will too. Only to gain something in monetary terms.