I totally understand the system and the goal that is behind that. What I don't do, is to mix up strategy and empowerment. It's the perspective of the power balance in this system that makes it dangerous. The way I've seen downvotes generally used in HF21/22 is fantastic, but I don't think it will stay that way.

The Steemians with the biggest stakes can now enroll a lot of regulation, as they could have since a very long time. But until now they would do that very selective and not based on systematic, or maybe even fully automated rules. Only with the free downvotes, it really makes sense to build downvote systems that strive for a better STEEM environment for . . . . B L A N K S P A C E . . . . .. they can choose for whom.

My father told me once, the best political system in the world might be a perfectly just King. I still don't believe in that. People have different needs and opinions and the people should be the real King.

If you really want to have a giant ecosystem where big STEEM stakes do good for everyone, there might have been less intrusive ways of doing that. Maybe limit the maximum size of upvotes/downvotes or create even smarter curation curves that can perfectly adjust to soft parameters, improve the UI to showcase extensively good content based on upvotes per views or general overperformance of an author. But who am I to suggest such things, I'm sure you already get the idea.