The distribution of rewards is essentially a consensus based process although few individual posts or comments ever come close to meeting the blockchain definition of consensus, which is what I meant by context.

>What is supposed to solve the abuse of witness voting or proposals?

The current solution is that there is sufficient stake amongst people that  act with the interests of Hive in mind that the barrier for abuse is very high. And while some people have very large stakes in the network, nobody has unilateral control over the top 20 producers or the unilateral ability to fund a proposal. As we saw with Steem, if there is a single entity with enough stake for unilateral control and uses it in bad faith, there is a path forward as well, but that scenario does not seem likely to happen on Hive.

In regards to Hivewatchers, as far as I know there is a scope for them to cover and deviations from that scope are generally pointed out. I sometimes am the one pointing that out. But I don't agree that getting into specifics of abuse in the Hive white paper makes sense. Hivewatchers is already funded by a DAO, with support from the stakeholders of Hive. Is the reason for bringing up the non-symmetry between reward pool voting and witness/DAO voting that their proposal can't be downvoted?

You and I seem to differ on how much weight and purpose we put into the Hive white paper. I generally see it as a document that reflects what we have, and it gets updated as Hive changes. I get the sense you see it as more of a constitutional document, that directs what Hive is or should be. Am I correct?