Whenever I need to accept something, I have to understand it first. For me, acceptance is difficult without knowing exactly why something happened or how something works.
This is especially true with the design around the rewards pool and its distribution/governance functions: upvotes & downvotes.
Wherever I look on Steem, I can see confrontations between Steemians as well as frustration, especially from people who feel they've been treated unfairly: "I bought 50,000 STEEM when STEEM was at 4$ and now I'm not even allowed to vote for myself or my friends? How dare you!?!"
And I get that point of view. I really do. I've been on Steem through thick and thin (more thin than thick tbh) and having a huge stake in a currency that has lost 98% from ATH, that really stings.
However, I also get the other point of view.
Would you believe me if I were to tell you that confrontation is placed right into the design core of the rewards pool?
Similar to our night/day cycle on earth, the rewards pool has two opposing forces governing its core: upvotes & downvotes.
With upvotes alone, people are generally happy, but the pool has no way to be protected against abuse. That's why downvotes exist. They sting like a sword but are necessary for a more healthier distribution.
And the existence of downvotes alone on Steem is why confrontation is built into the core layer of Steem itself, converting it to a potential warzone.
Now, obviously the question stands whether STEEM (the currency & platform for SMTs) is the right place for a warzone? (Again, that is what you'll have to deal with when having a global rewards pool.)
My personal opinion is: No!
A warzone is not an attractive place to onboard millions of users.
STEEM should be a neutral ground for everyone to come together who believes in the power of decentralised & monetized social media and who wants to build blockchain-powered apps via soft-consensus.
