RE: On Downvotes, Stake and Power

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

No, people we curate lose because downvotes are not applied to one specific vote. It is spread to all curators that voted on that post. So you are once again attacking random people to get at me.

If I was malicious this just works directly in my favor.



0
0
0.000
5 comments
avatar

But "malicious" don't mean anything, your free to vote/down vote anything so there are not really any "malicious" downvotes, i should be able to downvote content because i dont like it just like on reddit no ?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Problem is downvote pool is free, it doesn't incur an opportunity cost on the downvoter. Opportunity cost is bore by those who upvoted. Which invalidates their stake.

If it incurred an opportunity cost to you to downvote then sure you should be able to downvote to your heart's cost. Because you are the one paying its cost, not others.

0
0
0.000
avatar

If DV had a cost i would downvote and nor would anyone because you have more interest to not get a cost that to preserve the inflation

0
0
0.000
avatar

If DV had a cost i would downvote and nor would anyone because you have more interest to not get a cost that to preserve the inflation

That is a you problem. If someone cared strongly about something like illegal content and abuse they can easily spare some of their voting power. If they cared strongly cared about overrewarded content they could spare their power. And whales that do use downvotes have spades of power to spare. Most of their downvoting activity would not cost them more than 2% of their voting power.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Mmmh, i dont really see how it would be positive though haha

0
0
0.000