Wealthy individuals/organizations can silence anything on the platform and remove monetary rewards from anyone.
They have to buy steem and lock it for 3 month to be able to do so, so that's what I'd call a feature.
Mark Zuckerberg buys 99% of the steem supply with the intend to disrupt and hurt the platform.
A. Not going to happen even with 25% of supply.
B. That would make us all filthy rich
What's the point of comming up with a scenario where Facebook buys an impossible amount of Steem ?
The ‘disagreement on reward’ thing is plain stupid, imagine if in society it was normal to beat people up when you disagree with them, that’s effectively what steemit encourages with this.
There is zero violence involved in downvoting, and it happen that exposure is currently linked to reward, So disagreement on what should get attention or not follow the reward.
Only thing with wide consensus such as trolling, pedophelia,offensive content,etc…should be downvoted.
Consensus on defining trolling ? Consensus on defining offensive content ? Consensus on detecting pedophilia ? Consensus on ect ?
By your new consensus mechanism how many people are needed to watch and confirm said pedophilia to deserve it being censored?
Only a handful of people have the ability to really moderate the site....
Everyone can equally downvote, I really don't see how any wider consensus method would be better. You should come have a look in https://steemit.chat/channel/steemitabuse to see how minnows and whales work together to fight abuse.
Another important takeaway is that self voting does not really hurt the platform, unless everyone does it of course.
What if instead of Zuck buying 99% of all Steem 99% of people were doing like you and self vote through your scheme with @mindhunter (upvoting empty comments at time 6.5 day).
We the community need to trust that those with influence are doing a proper job moderating ... Unfortunately they have proven many times that we can not trust them.
What are you even talking about? How much of your large stake have you used to moderate?
Whenever a user downvote content he is losing potential rewards. This means that only a few people are in the business of moderation.
How is "losing potential rewards" a business ?
When a rich individual can ruin your reputation with only a few votes the reputation score becomes meaningless.
I agree reputation on steemit is pretty meaningless.
We need consensus with at least 80-90% majority in order for a post to be down voted.
How on earth do you expect 90% of people/stake on steem to watch said pedophilia or read the BS you are posting before deciding it is trolling and should deserve a downvote?
The proposal is not necessarily to create 1 steemian = 1 downvote but to bake consensus in.
"Not necessarily..." I mean really ? This is utterly stupid. If you're not aware at @spaminator/steemcleaner we're dealing with bonets with 10k+ accounts.
Anyway let me know how you feel about this.
I feel like you should consider selling you Steem and move onto someting else because appart from stealth self upvoting and giving shortshighted and half-assed advices on how to run the platform you seems pretty useless here. (I remember all your previous post from a year ago, seems like it didn't evolve much since then.)
