RE: Untangling the Gordian Knot that is Steem Ethics
From a free market perspective, it would be better to just upvote in the same way we buy stuff. I don't downvote. And upvoting is like betting on the horses that may win. The ability to upvote and downvote might be like double betting where you create a win win situation if you are able to bet on both sides in a scheme to always win. Not saying we have that with Steem. I believe in supply and demand.
It would be better if we were focused only on upvoting what we liked as opposed to also, at the same time, trying to police the place in trying to minimize posts that might earn too much money subjectively. Having the freedom to do both is what we have currently it seems. I know some people might like that freedom to do that. But people don't go to McDonald's and steal money from them because they earned too much money, right? Facebook earns billions of dollars each year from us. Can we go and downvote Facebook for making too money? They don't share that money with us. That's sad. But I would not downvote Facebook.
You basically read my mind. There is a thing
called put options, but I don't think it belongs
married up with social media. It's unnatural.
I've not heard of put options before.
Put options, shorting a stock, or short
selling is betting that a stock will tank.
It's a risky endeavor but their are gains
to be made with that particular tactic.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortselling.asp
Same thing in the crypto market, when Bitcoin up to a high, like 10K USD, or maybe 20K, then many people sold their Bitcoin, perhaps, right? But then again, if you sell your Bitcoin, then somebody else will have that Bitcoin, right? So, why would the value decline in Bitcoin?