It's good you took the feedbacks in a positive route.
We will still be happy to moderate the downvote system and overlook the users to make sure that no one is abusing our burn-to-downvote system.
Since no one from the Helios team claims to initiate the downvotes themselves, I think there needs to be a means to validate that remains to be so on the blockchain. If there is a channel on discord that prevents people from accessing the records that X user from Helios did it, it doesn't help that we just have to take your word for it.
Hive defender was good in concept because it tackled on an emerging issue and we need more activities that decentralizes antiabuse on Hive. The flaw was in the execution because given some gray areas of the issue being tackled, limitation of tools and a lot of time it required to prove anything.
My unsolicited suggestions: If the downvotes turn into a business is a downvote criteria that majority can agree on. Will all downvotes be permitted even if the target post being downvoted does no wrong and the motivation was just out of malice? Is the service open to everyone including anonymous accounts or for whitelisted users? if a whitelist is available, what's your criteria to get into the club? It's a lot to consider but if laid out early and clear, I think it would avoid future misunderstandings.
Sounds very interesting! :)