The latter.

That's an arbitrary number, but if you're concerned with rewards being distributed more broadly, I'm pretty sure downvotes are helpful not harmful in practice. The higher payouts get downvoted more. The

We have downvotes as a check on abusive upvotes, wouldn't it make sense to have some kind of check on abusive downvotes? They're not equivalent. Upvotes earn rewards and generate payouts, downvotes don't.

That only happens because of too few downvotes. If there are 50 people or 500 people downvoting, they're not going to retaliate against all of them. Alternately, smaller stakeholders can stick with downvoting

Excuse me? Except for posts involving downvote drama and other insider nonsense that has no or negative marketing value (but still perfectly legitimate to debate, just don't expect to be paid for it),

It's all a matter of degree.

I saw the reward as excessive. Nothing wrong with the post. I delivebately sized the downvote to only reduce the reward a moderate amount.

Like I said, I don't hate it but I prefer the way it works now. When we downvote overpaid stuff in the top 100 (which is nearly if not 100% of what I downvote, and I suspect a large portion of total downotes),

I don't think it's that bad but burning and shifting away from one payout are two different things and voters ought to be able to do both. If voters think more should be burned overall (that is, that the

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, and if you don't mind me saying so, you have an obvious interest is claiming that you getting downvoted "looks bad". I'm not buyng it. Document all you

Upvotes were excessive in my opinion. I deliberately made a limited downvote to not reduce rewards too much.

Not all are effective

The correct answer is more subtle. If you're downvoting a post in the top 100 (almost always what I downvote since I don't spend a lot of time looking for downvote candidates), you are actually reducing

I don't remember that line. I'll watch for it if I see the film again,

getting flagged because of differences of opinion Differences of opinion over what should be rewarded, yes. That's exactly what downvotes are for.

I see it as the same sort of insider drama. By all means, go ahead and post and debate but I don't see added value to Hive that justifies rewarding it (but if enough stake disagrees with me, it'll get

I didn't entirely understand that, but I do agree that in cold rational terms, conflict can have value to social media. Many people would consider that a problem, but it is what it is.

There is some marketing. It could definitely be better.

The marketing around rewards has never been great. I don't disagree with numerous wrong impressions being given. We should work to improve it, but communicating about a complex system to an audience who

This is real life. Everything is real life unless you're imagining it or dreaming it. Is Hive different from many other systems? Yes! Differentiation is important. Is everything about Hive great or perfect?