"There are two sides to that coin. In buying steem and hodling steem, I also have downvote autonomy."

Well, I can't imagine that anyone of sound mind would purchase more of the token for the added benefit of larger downvotes. Downvotes are not beneficial, and they do not appeal to anyone's immediate self-interest. With #newsteem, someone may want to purchase more SP for the larger stake to counter flags with revenge votes, but that would just be pure masochism and not quite a logical or sound investment strategy.

The first model that the GUI presented fell more in line with how people behave, and now because of a GUI change along with the addition of free downvotes, people are encouraged to act differently. It is a radical shift to get people to act in a prescribed way based solely on the instructions of an authority figure. The closest I have to compare this nonsense to is the Milgram experiment, and there are so many people failing right now and with flying colors at that.

If this isn't someone's idea of a sick and twisted social psychology experiment, then at the very least, some entity may as well read, examine, and use the data for that very purpose. I guess you'll have what you get with the so-called "consensus." If Democracy, as described by Benjamin Franklin, is "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Then how can we illustrate a consensus of a Steem oligarchy as it pertains to free daily downvotes?