"On the other hand, downvotes are gamified actions with negative feedback loops, resulting in possible higher toxic behaviour than on any other social media.

The only example that I know of, where downvotes exist is Reddit. However, on reddit you're only "losing" visibility & possible karma, which in comparison to the real currency STEEM is more than worthless.

And there is most likely a good reason why nearly every social network only allows the user to like/upvote other content. It's simply a positive feedback loop, which is important in attracting millions of users. However, none of those social networks is actually handing out real money."

I strongly resonate with the above excerpt. Also, I think it's important to note that people who purchased Steem on the market provided a service to the crypto in propping up its value. If they stay powered up, that's a HODL which serves to maintain or stabilize Steem's value. Additionally, the GUI, at one point had a tickbox to self vote. So if someone purchased Steem for the higher vote value to increase their own post's visibility then getting dinged for reward disputes because their post has a value of a box of pop tarts as opposed to a can of soda might be enough to cause them to power down and dump to the market. I say live and let live, communist wonderlands don't attract big money anyhow.

MAYBE? keep the 50/50 split because it appeals to people's self-interest first and then motivates them to curate at the same time. The ninja miners should know if they want in for the long haul or not. If they do, they won't self vote non-quality content at 100%. If they don't, they should sell. However, if they as uberwhales maximize off the reward pool, then they potentially forfeit the future value of Steem for more worthless tokens. I'm in favor of self-autonomy, nobody came to decentralized social media blockchain for blockchain cops engaging in civil asset forfeiture. If the abuse is so bad, why not just fix the rate-limited voting if that's what's broken. After all, the whitepaper does say that it's a "major part" of minimizing abuse. If it's such a major part, tweak those numbers and let the code do the policing.

How about a condenser only change to lead by example. With Reddit like buttons detached from blockchain functions. They allow one vote per IP address and per post up or down. Call it up sorting and down sorting. Remove the flag and call the upvote a tip jar. Then you read a post. If you like, give it a tip and up sort. If you dislike it, down sort. People en masse might go to trending every day just to fix it, and with equal votes, there is going to be a greater success than we have now. I don't like to do people harm, therefore I am far more likely to down sort than I am to downvote. I could see benefit in casting an opinion without influencing rewards. Some might even up sort without rewarding if they think the post already has enough value.