Since you brought up changing your vote perhaps you can look into how that works. As I understand it (but I could be wrong and have not searched into the code), changing a vote from 20% to 21% takes mana of a 21% vote, not a 1% vote (and in addition forfeits any curation rewards that the original 20% vote may have earned). This creates an incentive to split ones stake up into tiny pieces so that instead of changing a vote one can just add another 1% from a different account.
If there is not actually any exploit here (and perhaps it is not the exact one I mentioned but some other one with respect to changing votes), I would also be interested to learn that since the claim has been made to me that there is, and that users without fleets of many small/bot accounts are placed at a disadvantage.
Why can't negative curation be the reverse of positive curation?
The downvoters get their curation rewards just like upvoters?
Maybe winner takes all?
More downvotes than upvotes and the downvoters get all the curation rewards, and vice versa?
That's being handled by @inertia's Stingy token. Opt in today!
Winner takes all is not a good option, because it might easily sway voting. Once there is a certain number of votes, it will become less and less attractive to vote against the majority. Not only will this skew the results naturally, but might also encourage practices like early upvote/downvote spam, to set the initial trend in hopes that it will keep rolling later on.
What about downvotes taking curation then if they exceed curation taking author rewards?
I don't know. At the first glance it would make sense for downvotes to be treated like upvotes (as you suggest in your previous post, I was only contending the "winner takes all" part), at least to some extent, and I don't see any issues with that, but it doesn't mean there must be none. I only spoke up about what I was pretty sure to be fundamentally flawed. By no means I claim to have a perfect (or even demonstrably good) solution for the problem.
By the way, "winner takes all" was how League of Legends (MOBA game) Tribunal system worked - reported players were judged by the community in a punish / don't punish vote, "judges" were rewarded if they cast a vote that eventually won. Even though you could not see how the voting went so far, wondering how people would vote was still a big part of the decision instead of the actual offences commited by the player. The system was later retracted (and replaced by other means of dishing out common punishments, which are arguably worse, but that's another story).
Hmm, so straight up and down voting.
Perhaps the stake, that ostensibly belongs not to stinc, but to the chain, could do what steemflagrewards does. Reward abuse fighting.
Or separate up and down voting pools.
The way it is works if the big stake values capital gains over extracting inflation, they currently don't.
They cut their own throats because they have their roi and are playing with none of their own money.
Ultimately, its the ninjamine that destroyed the balance.
With an 800mv influence cap, rewards and curation worked just fine.
We even gained users.
I cant wait for the truth to be exposed.
Why are some people working against steem's success?
That might be a good idea to bring back, or anything else that will cause diminishing returns in power the more popular you get. For example logarithms (e.g. 1 popularity measures = 1 measure of power, 10 popularity = 2 power, 100 popularity = 3 power, 1000 -> 4 or 1->1, 2->2, 4->3, 8->4, 16->5 etc.) or roots (e.g. 1->1, 4->2, 9->3, 16-> 4, 25-> 5 etc.).
This way you could both "climb the social ladder of importance", but you couldn't as easily become a "social tyrant" of sorts, who cannot be "overthrown".
Lol, good idea, unless you are one of the oligarchs.
Maybe the sps will free us,...
Oh, the last one is simple, wherever there's a possibility for abuse for personal gain, especially without negative consequences, sooner or later it will be exploited.
I'm here just because I'm curious how such "alternative market" behaves (and also because the currently major social media sites mostly suck, but I don't have high hopes for steem in particular). I'm not an economy major or something like that either.
Steem on, it's just a ride,...right?
Yes. Maybe. Winner takes all sounds exciting like you said. But I would prefer having no downvote/flag option and to keep the upvote separate from a like and dislike and viewed. I would rather have separate pools for each person as opposed to one pool for everybody. But then again, I guess Steem is similar to Bitcoin in some ways and Bitcoin has one big pool as well and I guess that is ok.