Yeah, it's all about over rewarded content, right?!?! Even more blatant on @thoughts-in-time recent post on the same subject, even lower payout but still got the downvote. Makes it even more obvious this isn't all about high rewards, there's much more to it, and notice how the same users who continually go around defending the necessity of downvoting as being 'good for the platform' are the same ones who go around doing the downvoting and getting upvotes from these downvoting whales. It's defense of punishment of dissident content and nothing else. Anyone can form an opinion that content they don't like is getting 'too high' rewards and then downvote as punishment for content under guise of disagreement on rewards. If it was about reward disparity, the common sense approach would be an effort to upvote the under-rewarded posts, but the few upvotes smooth does dole out appear to be on already highly rewarded trending posts, while other clearly over-rewarded posts never get such downvotes, further illuminating this downvote scheme is not truly about 'correcting' reward pool 'abuse' or disparity, and it's obvious to us as blockchain peasants on the receiving end what it actually is about. Power elite aren't fond of competition, they see it as a threat to their power, particularly when this competition comes from those with dissident views.

I say give every user equal downvote power so weighted stake only determines value of upvote with downvotes having equal power across all users. This is the only way downvotes as flags can work in favor of the entire community, otherwise it morphs into classes of users - the peasant masses and the ruling class blockchain police.