Vote cancelling won't produce the outcome you think it will. It basically gets to more or less the same outcome (though with slight differences in the calculation of curation rewards). Instead of downvoting, those who disagree with how whales are allocating rewards repeatedly to concentrated payouts for krnel and others and find that form of voting harmful will will cancel some of it, and the algorithm will find a consensus. Or alternately we will continue to downvote and those whales who disagree will cancel our votes, but in doing so reduce consume their vote power and reduce their own ability to excessively upvote. The net result will be much the same as it is now, with both upvotes and downvotes taking place (i.e. smaller rewards hogged at the top, and more rewards available for higher and more rewards to hundreds or thousands of other posts and comments).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: