Thank you for your input.
It may not be the perfect solution but it would make it exceptionally harder to abuse because creating so many accounts costs a lot.
Only people with a lot of cash could do that, and if they do that the people would hate them for it. @Zombee did that with 10 accounts but to reward himself, he lost his 500K delegation from Ned.
I see your point, but I still disagree with you. It's really easy to make new accounts, and they only "cost" 6 Steem per account. So a person with 600 Steem (valued at something like $1,500) could make 100 accounts, which could all flag 10 times each day to remove rewards without loosing their Voting Power. This means that a $1,500 investment will allow you to remove $500 from authors every single day.
Keep in mind that this can be done anonymously, so it will be easy for something with a few thousand dollars invested to remove all or most of the rewards from people they don't like.
Thanks for your input Valth, I see this would be a big problem.
You're welcome. And sorry if I was seeming harsh, I'm just trying to share my view of the problems with this potential solution. But I agree that something needs to be changed if we want Steem to grow, so I'm glad to see that you are trying to improve it by sharing your ideas ;)
No problem, I was just too lazy to counter your argument at that time so here it goes: Remove the flagging system and make the top people think of a better system.
And you were not harsh at all!
Just completely reworking the flag system into something different might actually be just what we need at this point. It's just so difficult to find a system that is both fair to users, investors, bloggers and curators at the same time, without one of these groups feeling like they could get screwed by the system. I'm kind of glad it's not my job to make the decision, because it seems next to impossible to please everyone.
100%