the point is that if there is no balance, the higher stake always decides in the end and disrupts the balance for good. It is enough that you conduct a thought experiment that user @dotevo from blurt gave me:

I once described a hypothetical situation to describe the main problem, but I think it is worth adding it here. Let's imagine 2 groups of people, e.g. democrats and republicans ;) to make it thematic.

Democrats have a voting power of 1M hive, and Republicans 0.9M hive. For the sake of considerations, let's assume that no one else is on the platform. A certain republican writes an article, receives votes worth 0.9M hive, and then people come in from downvote and it is 0. Then we have the opposite situation, except that after subtracting we have a voting power of 0.1M. It would seem that this is fair, but hive has constant inflation. So the reward depends strictly on how many votes were cast in the network. Since there are only 2 pieces of content, now the entire mess must be distributed proportionally. That is, 100% to the Democrat's content, 0 for the Republican. Despite the fact that the communities have similar voting power, the pool is taken by the slightly stronger one. by @dotevo

I will develop this experiment further in comment:

Exactly, but let's continue with these considerations because this is just getting started :)

Democrats gain 100% of 0.1M, so the next time there is a clash, Democrats already have 0.2M more, and in the third "fight" 0.4M more. The value grows exponentially and tips the scales of power radically in favor of one group. After only 5 clashes, Democrats have twice as much voting power as Republicans and can easily take over the platform. by @khrom

That's all on the subject. Even if you treat it as a "game", it is a broken game because it is completely unbalanced.

https://blurt.blog/@dotevo/smyich