Quality is always a contentious issue on Hive, as one man's trash is another's treasure, so to speak. I agree, that good content should get rewarded, but more importantly than that, valuable content should get rewarded. Engaging, interesting, generative, helpful, supportive, growth mindset content should get support. Authors who create good content also need to understand that they don't have a publicist, so they better be ready to grind.
Governance is an issue for sure and I think that in some way, people don't take interest because of the staked system, but the problem without the staked system is that any idiot has an equal say. We see this in the "real world" where people vote on highly technical things while not evening holding rudimentary knowledge. Just think how many people have a decent understanding of economics, and how many people vote with economic repercussions of their choices.
Sure, there are various views about what constitutes quality. But I think there is a lot of agreement on what constitutes shit posting. And that auto-voting such shit posting is not good for the platform as a whole. And that directing those votes to quality content (found by curators) is good for the platform. I think there is agreement on that. If there is agreement, the question is how to make it happen so that people who auto-vote their friends' shitposts switch to voting for quality curated content.
Agreed about governance, and a new reputation system may help a lot with that. But I still think that even with the current system, things could go better if more people took interest in witnesses and proposals. I was thinking that including more information about governance in the existing intake processes and frontends can help.
Yes there is :)
Downvotes, if people use them.
For sure. There is no perfect system, but not much improves through disinterest.
Yeah, if they use them. For shitposts of popular authors? I wouldn't myself unless there is anonymous downvoting. Would you?