You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Negative Voting and Steem
If in 6 months time there are a fair number of whales and an even larger number of dolphins to balance things out, there is no problem at all.
I don't see this as possible with the current/projected growth of the platform. The number of new users grows much faster than the current wealth distribution rate, which will arguably only make the problem worse. The big issue right now is unfair visibility. Meanwhile the current "trending page" will always have a limited amount of spots. We need a more dynamical solution that scales with user growth.
If the whales actively took the time to distribute their votes far and wide, then it should be easy to create a large dolphin class that acts like a stabaliser in the system. The problem is some whales are putting short-term gain ahead of long term benefits and only upvoting a select few. Perhaps they think the platform won't last and they need to make as much short-term money as they can. Or perhaps they haven't thought long term at all (a lot of players are NOT strategic when it comes to the long term, but only respond to short-term stimulus).
Still, it could just not be enough. 20 users have 50% of the voting power. Even if they curated full time they might not be able to create enough dolphins.