You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A game theory requirement for steem downvotes has not been shown
You are welcome.
I share your feelings :)
My first impression, eight months ago, was that the ideas are very idealistic. (what a sentence - ideas are always idealistic :))
The thing is that the scenario in a way really happened. Canceling out the votes and such ...
Idea are always idealistic. This is pure bliss. I won't forget that one.
I agree that there's some quite of vote cancellation going on and it would only make sense to make it more precise and accessible to everyone. At least that's my feeling.
I agree with you feelings.
Two issues though:
In Dan's scenario all votes are equal. Here they are not!
I re-read the 4 post you linked from Dan and my mind was blown. I had totally forgot about them but now I remember why I had keep a positive stance toward vote countering.
About the power distribution, those who risk a lot at the start will reap great reward as Steem become ever more successful. If they decide to sell then the distribution become more even.
I enjoy how the coin was initially distributed. It gave chance to anyone who believe in Dan more so than a ICO which would most probably have given a bigger advantage to rich people.
Also in Dan's scenario not all votes are equal.
I told you so :)
Then I must rereread the posts :)