The system was designed to prevent abuse by small players, but short of a benevolent dictator, is helpless against larger players.

With a simple majority of 'good' stakeholders, couldn't the negative effects of 'bad' stakeholders be essentially neutralized by just countering their votes?

On a smaller scale, the @asshole user was deemed 'bad' and the @seraph bot was able to counter it by just upvoting everything it downvoted.

Where it could become 'interesting' is everyone's subjective perception of what is good and bad. What one group seems to agree with and think is 'good' - a different group seems to think is bad. I guess the worst case scenario is that most of the major stake-holders just end up in a giant stale-mate of canceled votes, leaving everyone that is left with more influence + curation rewards.

The main way I could see this becoming a problem would be if the 'bad' stakeholder just started splitting into a lot of little accounts and moving SP around to make it difficult to automate a counter.