I've had a few positive experiences with some of the top Witnesses. They've engaged in discussion and acknowledged comments, even if disagreements were present.
Others...eh, not as much of a positive experience. I've observed that some seem to post incessantly, rewarding themselves on top of their daily producer rewards for maintaining the blockchain. When is enough, enough?
Even worse, I had a Witness downvote me recently on the erroneous assertion that I cited "false facts" in a comment I made to a post. When I defended myself with objective and verifiable citations regarding what I wrote, there was no response, and the downvote remains.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all delegate a portion of our Steem Power holdings and maintain the blockchain via our stakes, similar to how other delegated proof of stake systems work? I would imagine such a system would be more equitable.
Alas, such a system doesn't exist here. I have not yet voted for a Witness but it seems the time has come to do so, as it is apparent that the future success of the blockchain is heavily swayed by those in this position of influence.
Answering to what? That i should spend my time, trying to explain my thoughts to somebody, who clearly doesn't want to know any better and has his mind up?
And I downvoted your comment, because I didn't aggree with your theory about MarketCap showing absolute Value, in the least.
If you are not willing to accept that MarketCap isn't a true representation of value - then don't bother trying to find reasons why it was unfair for me, to downvote your comment.
Maybe downvoting isn't the right thing to do solely because it hides the discussion on Steemit and prevents other people from joining. Regardless of how anyone feels about Eos or marketcap, censoring someone else for having a different opinion than you probably isn't the best move.
It wasn't about hiding for me, but more about showing my opinion. Also, it is called flagging, but actually it is a downvoting - the opposite of an upvote, which is nothing more than a disagreement.
And as long as this doesn't remove extreme parts of rewards, I don't see any problems with it.
The fact you cite the "weiss report" as counter-evidence is very telling of your lack of ability to form a reasonable set of answers to his assertions. Go have a look at what other garbage-tier dumpster-fire companies in the corporate world they give A and B ratings to. And you know that downvoting something pushes it down a thread when the user sorts by "trending" (the default on steemit, surprise surprise) because that's just another word for "money value of votes" and removes its immediate visibility, stop making up sorry excuses for why you're scared to let "FUD" as you would call it stand on its own merit in a fucking dmania thread. It's a meme thread and you're scared that people will see a well-reasoned argument? What a fucking joke. Weak shit like this is exactly why no one with any critical thinking sense at all would ever voluntarily join this website if the financial incentive to partake in the trickle of Tether-inflated coins being produced was removed.
"Oh and - downvoted for sharing of false facts."
That was your stated reason for downvoting my comment in the cited thread.
I write about the markets and market cap is incontestably a representation of value to both traders and investors. It's not the only metric by which value is assessed, but it is among the top. And that's not a false fact. The popular site "Coinmarketcap" implies this by its very name.
You're a Witness. I've had numerous discussions with Wtinesses in which disagreements were expressed and varying opinions were shared. Not once was I downvoted by any of them for expressing a different point of view.
I am a top 70s witness who doesn't usually agree with young mr wolf to be honest, but in this case, he is correct, sorry. Just because some didn't down vote you, you got lucky or whatever, he is free to do so.
The Steem Blue Paper describes the blockchain as a protocol that "enables people to earn the currency by using their brain (what can be called “Proof-of-Brain”)."
It's one thing if downvotes represented an expression of different points of view without negating the visibility of a user's "proof of brain." Instead, they are synonymous with a flag that can be employed by those with greater SP influence to blot out varying opinions, even when those disparate viewpoints are expressed in a clear and thoughtful manner and do not fit the description of content that is commonly cited for flags when one clicks on the flag button.