@smooth73
(edited)If someone chooses to downvote something, it gets less rewards. The more stake downvoting it (whether from one person or multiple), the more stake disagreement there is, and the less rewards it gets.
At the same time, OTHER posts which do NOT get downvotes (or get relatively little stake downvoting, even if some), get more rewards. Those are the ones where the community has broadly agreed to direct rewards.
You can think of a downvote as a sort of veto on payouts. Anyone (or multiple people) can stand up and object, essentially veto that payout, though strength of that veto depends on stake.
0E-8 BEE
Ok, I suppose your premise might be a bit better understood now. But what I find very very weird and highly misleading is the fact that you would have used the word "consensus" in all that malarkey about the downvotes. Since clearly there's not any consensus at all when through an arbitrary downvote you end up snatching and sweeping with the rewards of the authors and all the curators of a post.
View more