Sure, but i've never heard of such a thing in real life where a guy who has 1,000 USD in his wallet curates a selection of items/books and puts them on public display somewhere where there's lots of people, and a millionaire walks by and cancels the display. Then the millionaire says "have more money in your wallet if you want to have your display here".
That entire interaction and system is nonsensical.
This is real life. Everything is real life unless you're imagining it or dreaming it.
Is Hive different from many other systems? Yes! Differentiation is important. Is everything about Hive great or perfect? Certainly not. We do the best we can with what we have and also work to improve it.
In any case, you can think of it as somewhat like a business where the shareholders vote on how the business is run (usually indirectly, by hiring a board or manager, but on some occasions directly). Those with a larger share of the business have more votes. That's not completely new, but applying it to a dynamic content rewarding environment is new (or at least was new when Steem invented it)
The money isn't in your wallet then taken away. It's in limbo fluctuating as the market corrects to decide the value. Think if this period as a secondary market. Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows.
I don't agree that one person should be able to wipe out what 100 others users thought was quality, but it's a tricky issue to tackle. We must have a balance to ensure free speech. What's a more balanced system? Certainly not one without downvotes.
Above I've mentioned one improvement to better decentralize Hive. Unfortunately it doesn't address this particular one. I'd say this one should be dealt with one on one between the parties involved.
I bet with the right wording, one side can bring the other to the table. It takes the defeated side to be more humble though. I don't think that affects anyone's free speech, just ego...