I really couldn't find your argument against the current proposal in this post...

I think I sense some worries about more downvotes in between the lines but then I see multiple arguments for why that would be good in the actual lines themselves:

surviving in the new ecosystem will require a higher level of individual awareness about how much ‘quality’ your own material has.

The only check on buying every possible vote you can for every post is the free downvote pools.

It is the personal responsibility of every Steemian to evaluate the quality of their content with one simple question: Will this post attract more upvotes than downvotes?

Doesn't this all speak FOR the availability of "free" downvotes?!?

In the end, isn't this all about getting rid of all these 70/80-ish reputation accounts that just push out the most repetitive low effort content bid-botted to $100-200 daily without any repercussions?!

There is no proof-of-brain or subjective judgement on quality if people literally just "buy" most of the rewards in a simple ROI game... and then others are expected to spent their voting-mana and the social cost for stepping in?!?