Like that one account did with marky? I don't know if he nullified his postings or comments but we saw two wales at war with each other.
What do you mean with "nullify stake" and "burning" it in combination with delegation power?
Can you give me an example which I can understand better?
Like "A" abuses and "B", "C" and "D"-wales come along and nullify "A"s stake, for example.
Would they delegate part of their own stake into a special created account in order to have bigger power to counteract one or more abusive players?

In order to have a case of "abuse", you'd have to have an investigation and the partaking of the parties involved (involvement then is key, for a wale who wants to establish a rule against abuse, must involve himself and have an understanding of legalities). In combination with that, there has to be a certain protocol to which the wales commit themselves.

Like in the customary law of the country, according to which all the considerations and preliminary investigations have to be made before a judgement is reached (the famous trial).

It seems to me that there is not the necessary seriousness on this portal that the actors would really want to put as much work into it as is expected outside the platform, for example.

The witnesses would have to agree on a protocol and procedure and set up the separation of powers similar to the way it is done in democracies. You would need a judge at the end. But he cannot be part of this reward structure and should not have his own account here, in my view. But then the question arises why someone should do that if he is not remunerated for it. He would still have to have a high level of non-participation and not be loyally associated with those who program the code or are big players. I don't see how that could work?

After all, the crucial point is: how exactly and by whom was abuse committed, and what exactly justifies the punishment that goes with it? You need proof, don't you.