Also, does this mean you believe that if you don't like a shop owner (who isn't doing anything illegal) or you don't like the patrons of that shop, that you should be able to take money from their till and redistribute it to other shops?
no you can't:
Read the Steem Whitepaper.
Damn! Even on reply, I can't beat Taraz! :)
The money isn't "in the bank" until the end of the day when the deposit is made.
The tip-jar isn't emptied into the bartender's or street-musician's pocket until the end of the night.
If I leave someone an upvote, that's essentially a tip for that specific post and that specific account.
I'm fully intending to contribute to and encourage their efforts.
And if someone who disagrees with that post or doesn't like that account downvotes that same post with enough steem-power, they REDIRECT MY VOTE (tip) to "the reward pool", where it gets distributed to the TOP EARNERS.
My vote is canceled.
Perhaps a charity box at a church that gets redistributed to the poor?
Would it be like having a hundred charity boxes, each with someone's name on it?
And then if one box got "too many" contributions, the church leaders would "redistribute" those donations to the TOP EARNERS?
How does this make sense to anyone?
Ah, you have made a common error here with the way Steem works. The Steem is not in the till for 7 days.
Downvotes do not take Steem that is owned, they redirect Steem that has been earmarked. Up until payout time when the Steem moves into an actual wallet, that Steem is still in the pool and is open to negotiation. For seven days the Steem is in the stake-directed market flow and not until it is in an account wallet does it become owned. Once owned, it is owned and it is up to the owner what they do with it.
No one is taking money from a shopkeepers till.
The money isn't "in the bank" until the end of the day when the deposit is made.
The tip-jar isn't emptied into the bartender's or street-musician's pocket until the end of the night.
If I leave someone an upvote, that's essentially a tip for that specific post and that specific account.
I'm fully intending to contribute to and encourage their efforts.
And if someone who disagrees with that post or doesn't like that account downvotes that same post with enough steem-power, they REDIRECT MY VOTE (tip) to "the reward pool", where it gets distributed to the TOP EARNERS.
My vote is canceled.
Perhaps a charity box at a church that gets redistributed to the poor?
Would it be like having a hundred charity boxes, each with someone's name on it?
And then if one box got "too many" contributions, the church leaders would "redistribute" those donations to the TOP EARNERS?
How does this make sense to anyone?
The money isn't "in the bank" until the end of the day when the deposit is made.
The tip-jar isn't emptied into the bartender's or street-musician's pocket until the end of the night.
The till is owned, as is the tip jar, they are not public property.
If I leave someone an upvote, that's essentially a tip for that specific post and that specific account.
Again, I will explain. Your tip isn't immediately from the pool to the post, it is earmarked for seven days and no, it isn't for a specific amount at all. Your vote percentage might be static, the vote value is not and will be affected by other things like how much the amount is on that post now. For example, if your vote is 10 cents on a post with no other votes, it is 10 cents (affected by all other votes of course in the system having an effect on the pool). However, if a large voter comes in and adds a vote on top, your vote might be worth 20 cents. You can test this by for example, voting on a zero voted post, and then voting on one in trending.
For whatever reason, you seem to be quite emotional about the mechanics here. However, consider if YouTube allowed all uploaders to decide how much of the money they pay to content contributors they get. Do you think it would accurately represent value if left unchallenged?
However, consider if YouTube allowed all uploaders to decide how much of the money they pay to content contributors they get. Do you think it would accurately represent value if left unchallenged?
ISN'T THAT WHAT PA.TREON IS FOR?
should pa.treon offer a feature where you can pay to cancel other people's subscriptions to accounts you DOnT LIke?
I don't like this yo.utuber, I'll open a pa.treon(-) account and cancel the subscriptions of all their supporters. Because I disagree with them.
I'm sure pa.treon(-) would make tons of money!
The pa.treon account sets the bar for subscriptions and offers incentives $1 a month, $10 a month, $100 a month. So they sort of set their own price.
Now imagine if pa.treon allowed people to sign up NEGATIVE subscriptions.
That would be the equivalent of a downvote on pa.treon.
Do you believe NEGATIVE subscriptions would IMPROVE the pa.treon platform?
do you think it would attract more users or do you think it would drive users AWAY?
You are mistaken in your comparison. the subscription on patreon is a deal made directly between provider and consumer. Steem is not that, as a vote comes out of a shared pool of resources.
If it makes it easier to understand, see the Steem pool as a shared wallet between a group of people where any purchase made has an opportunity cost and affects all others in the group and their ability to purchase. If there is a 100 dollars in the wallet and someone wants to buy something for themselves with it, all others will have to go without. The downvote is a challenge of the purchase or perhaps, "the right to return" what was bought for some money back.
You are mistaken in your comparison. the subscription on patreon is a deal made directly between provider and consumer. Steem is not that, as a vote comes out of a shared pool of resources.
Not "directly", there's a corporate middleman that has veto-power over the deal.
Also, it's purely voluntary, just like an upvote.
see the Steem pool as a shared wallet between a group of people where any purchase made has an opportunity cost and affects all others in the group and their ability to purchase.
This is exactly like cash-money-dollars.
If fewer people SPEND cash-money-dollars, then the cash-money-dollars that DO get spent are worth MORE (deflation, reduced liquidity).
If MORE people spend cash-money-dollars, then the cash-money-dollars that get spent are worth LESS (inflation, increased liquidity).
If you could stop people (through some mechanism, like downvoting) from purchasing dumb stuff, or stop them from tipping drivers and servers and hair-stylists, THEN your money would be worth slightly MORE than it currently is worth.