First of all It is theoretically impossible to run out of upvotes as it takes a percentage of your voting power every time, always leaving some. Also It sounds like you will be leaving money on the table by not using all your down votes. The more you down vote the more it cancels out the rewards allocated, which in turn leaves more rewards for posts not down voted. This means people will down vote just to down vote. This is going to turn into a viscous place with this in place, causing lots of drama, on probably having many people leave the site. I for one will take my investment else where. You will lose active users, and then advertising revenue will go with it. You will be sliting your own throats worse than steemit inc has already done. Is there nothing else more important you can work on... Maybe SMTs, communities... Keeping people here.
If, hypothetically, every single user used all of their downvotes there would be tens or hundreds of thousands of downvotes per day. The drama will fade away into the ether because let's face it, you can't get upset about something that happens literally tens of thousands of times per day to every single post. If nothing else, fatigue over the drama kings and queens trying to turn everything into a personal attack will set in and people will start ignoring it.
Posts will then get ranked and paid out on the basis of which have a more favorable balance of upvotes and downvotes. Some people will upvote stupidly and some will downvote stupidly but mostly that will cancel out and the sensible application of upvotes and downvotes will prevail (unless the majority of the user base and stake are simply stupid, in which case there is no solution). I could not think of a better outcome.
Downvotes are current a big deal and drama today because they are so rare. Whenever it happens it is seen as a personal attack rather than an expression of opinion.
In reality I do not expect everyone to use all of their downvotes, so the favorable outcome described above won't happen, unfortunately. Hopefully we can end up somewhere in the middle.
And that will still be based on financial manipulation rather than on content quality. That's not curation, and it cannot be made to be. It's profiteering, and that's all it can be.
I flag trash. You have received a flag.
As I have stated elsewhere I am not opposed to eliminating the reward pool (perhaps in connection with SMTs which can decide whether they want to use voted rewarding as part of their distribution mechanism, or perhaps simply on its own merits). But I don't think we are there yet and more to the point I don't think consensus is there yet to actually do it. So we'll need to try a few things first and if it comes to the point where alternatives are exhausted and things still aren't working that is likely where we will end up realistically.
Rewarding content creation is the primary value of Steem. I do not propose eliminating the pool (except perhaps as SMTs provide improved mechanisms) but eliminating unlimited extraction of rewards. Limiting rewards to some multiple of the median payout (Huey Long algorithm) will eliminate profiteering, if coupled with eliminating curation rewards (not the rewards pool).
We need to draw users to Steem, and rewarding quality content does that. Drawing users to Steem creates the market for Steem, which is why Steem has value. Increasing the market for Steem increases the value of Steem, which provides capital gains to investors. That's what we should be doing.
Encouraging profiteering and flagging is contrary to that, and EIP just makes it more profitable to extract rewards via financial manipulation. If Steem survives EIP making these problems worse, do consider the Huey Long algorithm, and dividends from funding development as mechanisms for creating capital gains.
I flag trash. You have received a flag.
No it won't. It will induce spamming and more low value posting in order to generate the maximum payout for purposes of milking on a larger number of content items.
I see no reason to expect more spam just because unlimited rewards aren't potential. It's remotely possible some folks would post more, lower value content. I don't care. That's an insignificant matter compared to rampant profiteering that has utterly broken curation, and is dropping Steem's market cap about 15 places per year. Leaving downvotes unchanged handles spam with facility now, and would continue to.
'Milking' posts is already done, and the additional work making more posts entails reveals good work ethic. These are trifles compared to the existential threat Steem is under presently, and that EIP would worsen.
I flag trash. You have received a flag.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Oh, you can run out of voting power. It's just most people don't use more than 20% a day because it takes a day for every 20% you use to recover. Once you hit 0 voting power you can't vote anymore I believe unless that changed with rc's.
Also, there is nothing to say it will turn toxic, like most any social media people came from people are clearly happy to do it for free. So what if you don't get paid out for every post. Why is it expected that you need to? This has added benefits to stop spammers and abusers, way more than it would be used to abuse normal users. Also, no one can really do much damage other than people who have a lot of stake.
If you aren't being downvoted now I doubt you will be by a whale in the future. So a model without incentive doesn't incentivize them to hit a post that is ten dollars they are more likely to go after bot votes.
The only thing people should be worried about the new eip system is whales powering down to alt accounts to take advatage of things.