... in effect, spending newsflash's and xeldal's money in a manner that directly contradicts their wishes
Perhaps this is the core of our disagreement.
The only mechanisms for newsflash and xeldal to literally 'spend their money' would be through tips or direct payments. With that said, I assume that you did not intend the literal meaning of the phrase 'spend their money'.
In the non-literal sense, the mechanism for newsflash and xeldal to 'spend their money' is through their upvotes not through their downvotes. This is the only way the phrase 'spend their money' can make any sense (to me) beyond the literal sense.
Again, I don't agree at all that number of account holders is relevant. A 10000 account botnet is not more convincing to me than even a single highly invested stakeholder.
I should have used the phrase "$450 worth of upvote potential instead of just $200" in lieu of "32 account holders instead of just 2."
The reward pool is a shared resource. It's funded by inflation of stake which is a tax on all stakeholders. When consensus decides to spend money, it is effectively spending ALL of the stakeholders' money, of course more of the larger stakeholders, less of the smaller, as with any sort of pool with unequal shares.
There are only certain types of expenditures that make sense to come out of that sort of shared pool. They're generally expenditures that, in some broad sense at least, the community of stakeholders agrees should be made. In such a mechanism large stakeholders are going to have a large say. Of course, it's not absolute.
If you want upvotes where other stakeholder won't have a say in opposing that payout, including VERY LARGE stakeholders not having a VERY LARGE say (I could be mistaken but I think every account we are talking about here is top 20 if not top 10 or maybe even top 5), that's called a tip. It can and should be done without a shared pool.
View more