I don’t think this comment really engages with what Manifund said. They are leaning no on allowing negative votes “because of bad vibes/potential for drama and additional complexity it introduces.” It is not sufficient to establish that a good argument exists for allowing negative votes to prove that “no good argument to be made for disallowing negative votes.” That would, at a minimum, require engaging with the reasons Manifund identified for leaning no.
For example: as relevant here, the quadratic funding mechanism is at least somewhat open to manipulation and arguably to bad-faith voting, so one would need to worry about (e.g.,) a minority using small negative donations to financially silence someone they had a grudge against (rather than based on an honest belief that their work was net-negative).
I don’t think this comment really engages with what Manifund said. They are leaning no on allowing negative votes “because of bad vibes/potential for drama and additional complexity it introduces.” It is not sufficient to establish that a good argument exists for allowing negative votes to prove that “no good argument to be made for disallowing negative votes.” That would, at a minimum, require engaging with the reasons Manifund identified for leaning no.
For example: as relevant here, the quadratic funding mechanism is at least somewhat open to manipulation and arguably to bad-faith voting, so one would need to worry about (e.g.,) a minority using small negative donations to financially silence someone they had a grudge against (rather than based on an honest belief that their work was net-negative).