Thanks for responding @smooth. I’d like to reply similarly to what I’ve written to Luke above. Our proposal has also addressed the downvote portion like you’ve mentioned, and we’ve also considered the other modifications as preventative measures as well when it comes to flaggable activities.
However, I would support some modest non-linearity at the low end as an extra step in discouraging spam.
Yup, this is the plan. Maintain linear at the high-end.
And yes to be honest, I’ve no good idea of how things really work in a dpos setting and thought block producers are literally the ones making Steem what Steem is. I may write to Steemit, but in the end it'll still be up to the top witnesses to handle and execute the code? I may be wrong about a lot of how things work around here.
@lukestokes is the one to best address the issue of how to evolve the development process and governance (since he has probably thought about it the most and also written some about it) but as I mentioned, in practice, currently witnesses can only veto. There is movement in the direction of a more inclusive development workflow but if you want change now, lobby Steemit (the developers) and then once they release something you like, lobby witnesses to approve it (or if they release something you don't like, lobby witnesses to reject it).
Ah got it, thanks. It's been close to a year since the last HF. I thought that the 7x difference between curation and non-curation would've been causing an alarm. What has been stopping any tweaks and changes to move away from the situation? Or perhaps they're seeing value in self-voting/vote-trading that many are not seeing?? Confusing lol.
It isn't a priority of Steemit Inc nor on their roadmap. Their approach is focused on SMTs and other priorities. The idea of decentralizing development so that priorities aren't solely determined by Steemit Inc absolutely has validity but is first of all a complex transition to pull of and second of all, I also see some skepticism that the system "too new" to be ready for that..I don't agree with the latter, however, I do agree with the former and because of the scale and complexity of such a transition, it will only happen if there is widespread and non-reluctant support for it.