After a discussion with @berniesanders I wanted to clarify my position on a few things regarding 'the experiment':
Just in case you have no idea what I'm talking about, you can check out this post first for an explanation of the experiment.
I understand there are lots of views on the experiment, both good and bad. I do not dismiss the concerns of the people that are against the experiment.
Not having practically any influence over the site (even if one spends months earning SP through hard work, or making a $1,000 investment) is one of the biggest complaints from users. I believe that is one of the main things holding the platform back from mass adoption.
I believe strongly that billions of users investing small amounts ($100-$1,000) in order to gain some additional influence is going to be one of the key ways of driving investment into the platform.
I thing it is a great idea for the whales to refrain from using a portion of their voting power, so that the dolphins and minnows can have more influence.
I do believe very strongly in principal that all users (including whales) are allowed to use their SP for whatever they want. This includes downvoting. This also includes not participating in the experiment, and continuing to upvote.
If any user feels another user is not using their SP in the best interest of the platform, then countering their vote is a valid way to handle it.
It is nothing personal against any of the whales or what they are voting on, but @abit and @smooth have decided that the whales using their full stake to vote is not in the best interest of the platform. Based on this, they are using their SP to counter any votes that are counter to that goal.
If you are not OK with whales using their SP in whatever way they think is best (including downvoting) then please go and read the (outdated) whitepaper. What it says still applies to this. The system is designed for the largest stakeholders to use their stake to steer the platform in the direction they feel is best. Users with more SP have more say over the direction of the platform than users with less SP.
I would prefer to see the experiment done without any downvoting.
I do not want @smooth and @abit to stop downvoting though, so long as other whales continue to vote with their full stake. This means that the only way forward without discontinuing the experiment, is for the whales who are still voting to reduce the weight of their votes below 800 MV (including any voting trails linked to the same vote). It is entirely up to them if they want to do this though.
There is no way to force whales to stop voting, and it would not be right/fair to try and do so. Therefore, we are likely going to need to accept that the downvotes will be continuing for the forseeable future.
Assuming the downvotes are going to continue for some time, it would be good for @abit and @smooth to create a post clarifying what their rules are for downvoting, and automate it as much as possible so that downvotes are done consistantly, and in the block right after the upvote they are intended to negate. This will greatly reduce the unhappiness that is resulting from the experiment.
Changing the rewards curve from n^2 to a more linear curve will have a dramatic effect on the whales influence. If/when the rewards curve is changed, then the parameters of the experiment will need to be re-evaluated. Having the whales abstain from voting with full influence may not be necessary under a new curve.
I see the experiment as a temporary solution. Assuming that the community and stakeholders want to make this a long-term thing, we need to have a conversation about how to achieve the goal in a way that is:
Fair to the large stakeholders.
Does not encourage the splitting of SP into smaller accounts.
Does not require continuous downvoting in order to achieve the goal.
Regardless of which 'side' of the experiment you are on, I hope that as much as possible we can try to recognize that the people on both sides of this are pushing for what they feel is best for the platform. There are just differing views on what that is and how to get there.
I know it is a bumpy ride, but the platform is in beta right now. It is the right time to run these types of experiments, to try and find out the right set of parameters to allow the platform to grow. If we get it right, then a few dollars missed here and there from some downvotes will be chump-change in comparison to the millions of dollars our wallets will be worth when STEEM coins are worth $1,000 per coin ;)
Since the experiment started, I have seen a new sense of excitement with the platform from regular users that has not been there since I joined back in July. I have seen many users buying more STEEM, so that they can power up their accounts and gain additional influence. Many people are talking about how 'fun' the site is now. This is exactly what we want for the platform to succeed. This is why I continue to support the experiment.
Updated thoughts on 'the whale experiment' | Ecency
@abit and 
@smooth have decided that the whales using their full stake to vote is not in the best interest of the platform. Based on this, they are using their SP to counter any votes that are counter to that goal.