You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Reflections on the past, present, and future of VYB (Part 1)
I've been thinking about the benefits of lowering the downvote power. It does seem a little high now; overkill. I'd support that. It's been brought up numerous times now since Hive's inception.
What happens though if the downvote power is lowered to say 50% or even 75% less than what's offered today. That's far less damage one account (or several accounts run by one) can do if acting nefariously. More people would then have to downvote in order negate instances of abusive/exploitative behavior.
Has anyone been paying attention lately. Do you folks see how extreme things can get if you even so much as speak to someone who's used their downvote button... ?
I like that idea of the account being muted, temporarily. Being put in time out. I had suggested something similar awhile back. I also suggested affording members the opportunity to be able to write an appeal (similar to our current proposal system) if they feel they're being pushed around by downvotes. A platform where they can handle these disputes professionally (rather than exploding on everyone and everything) and somewhat privately (away from their blogspace). Community members can voluntarily review their case and if it's agreed the downvoter is out of line, they can have their ability to downvote muted for a month.
As someone who is being downvoted to zero and all upvotes are being downvoted, I still believe the current system is ideal.
There will always be a few bad apples, but the majority of people don't downvote. They don't want to take the risk of reducing their own rewards, they don't care about fighting abuse, they are not concerned with long term vision of the platform, at least not enough to do anything.
As @geekgirl said, the downvotes were the main reason we no longer have bid bots, Haejin is not farming with 100% efficiency with 1.4M HP that isn't even his, and many other farming operations have been shut down.
As I have said many times to trost, there are far more malicious upvotes (poor judgement, bad quality, farming, favoritism, etc) than malicious downvotes, I'd wager something like 1000:1 or more. It's not really a problem, the few cases it happens the community can step and correct it (like downvotes, this unfortunately rarely happens due to the potential loss of curation rewards doing so).
View more
Downvotes is actually very interesting social and economic experiment. Because it kinda comes with some sort of negativity, I try to avoid this topics and don't pay attention to such events. There are always better things to do.
Downvotes is actually a brilliant consensus mechanism for rewards distribution. The system is designed that stakeholders need to decide on what rewards what content or account should receive after 7 days voting window. Without downvotes the system wouldn't be complete. So it is very rational tool. The paradox is that we as rational thinkers we humans can comprehend this concept easily, but as emotional being we may react in an opposite way.
For example, I received a downvote just a couple of days ago that slashed post's pending rewards by half. Reason dictates - "great, system is working and rewards don't belong to anybody until they appear in their wallets". But emotions wouldn't be happy and question the motives.
The answer is I think in understanding where rewards come from in the first place. All Hive rewards are basically go out of collective stakeholders pockets. If stakeholders majority decide that there should be no content rewards at all, code can be changed and there will be no content rewards. Hive can function just fine without content rewards, and layer two solutions can produce content rewards.
Since the inflation dilutes stakeholders' shares, it makes complete sense that they get to decide how the rewards distribution is done. In the end, stakeholders are the ones who lose or win the most.
Ultimately, the system will grow and get more efficient as it gets more decentralized. I think we are on the right path overall, and ahead of many other attempts at creating decentralized standards for social platforms and web.
Decentralization requires participation. It looks like your content and art haven't been participating as of late. When are you going back to producing content?
View more