This is ambitious and I would love to see some kind of agreement or consensus reached about what constitutes "malicious". I have been downvoted before a few times. It was always a question about distribution and not a personal attack. I accepted the fact and moved on.
My comment or my post was "over-rewarded" in the eye of a certain stakeholder. There was nothing malicious about it, they just felt like some rewards I was currently set to receive should be returned. Did I like it? Not particularly.
The @haejin issue is the one cause for concern with this proposal. Once we have had the downvote rules set, it sets up a very simple form of abuse. 10 easy low effort posts with maximum reward from another user per day, not plagarism, not spam, just low effort posts... often. Without the ability to downvote, this user and voter would be able to make out like bandits while making the trending page look like a joke. I feel that there needs to be room for checking abuse, and this gets very grey and very dirty, and end up malicious. I am not sure how these standards should be set.
I also have the same thought with you about this point. I have a proposal in my post if we can have a way to limit the maximum reward per UV. By this, it force authors to spend more effort to create better content and attract more reader/voter :)
I hate the whole concept of "over-rewarded." It reminds me very much of people who hate billionaires because they aren't one. If someone like @allcapsonezero creates a post that everyone in the entire Hive-sphere loves and adores, then @allcapsonezero should reap the benefit of such a post. If someone spends thousands of fiat money on proofofbrain tokens to gain more voting power, the value of pob goes up...which is kinda the point, in my opinion. At the same time, they have more voting power where they also reap a benefit from curation. I promise if I was only expecting meager returns from my posts, curation, and leasing, I would never have put fiat money into the system in exchange for the token. I don't like petty downvoting, and I'm not a fan of automatic upvoting either. I think people should manually vote...but that's another story for another post :)
As someone who creates content for YouTube where I'm restricted to 100 uploads per day and have hit that limit dozens of times, I'm not a huge fan of limits for quality posts...now the question is, what is quality? I made a list of reasons I think a DV could be warranted in a comment above (assuming it stays where it's at lol )...but those are my thoughts. If they become accepted by the community, it becomes a helpful standard...the point of bringing the subject up.
You really shouldn't be talking about DV's, you're abusing them incredibly, and targeting people, just because you don't like them. I am over it, but just pointing out, you're talking crap!