Yeah not really trying to put the project and underlying idea in a bad light, I mentioned many times I don't really know what they do but puffing up APR numbers through the addition of guaranteed votes as long as you delegate or hold tokens should not be part of the equation.
Why delegate to other projects that may be doing something unique and have potential if I can delegate to this that'll guarantee me a higher APR because it'll give me a vote back while the other project won't because it's using their votes for their own community or on new users, etc.
The way I understand it, EDS is their own community that is focused on helping people build wealth. They have the Saturday Savers piece and all of that. Shouldn't that community be allowed to support their own members? If I see someone buy stock in a company, I don't get mad because they get paid dividends for holding that stock. I'm not trying to argue, just understand. Is the key issue the fact that they are getting paid in HIVE? If they were just awarded EDS tokens would it then be okay?
I think the idea of communities in general is that they support each other. If they pool their resources to do it, then that's pretty clever on their part. I don't really care. I mean I hold some EDS tokens and I think I delegate a bit, but it's pretty small comparatively, my KE shows that. I just know people are taking these observations by you pretty personally, and I'm curious where the lines are about what is and isn't subjectively allowed and not.
I personally feel that using the reward pool to pay those dividends is the issue here because it directly dilutes people who are NOT part of that communities rewards (if only by a tiny amount but still)
Dividends generally are paid from profits of such companies so personally I'd like such projects to do the same rather than use the reward pool.
Absolutely see no problem in communities rewarding they own communities for being part of said community, just rewards via votes should not be tied to tokens or delegations in any sense imo.
I'm a hive witness supporting the blockchain please consider voting for me! - Find out more here!
I get that the reward pool adds another layer to things. Curation rewards could in a roundabout way be considered profits though. It still comes from the same pool. I can see both sides of this issue and that is part of the reason I have avoided being overly vocal about it. I just know there are some users on here who would get nothing in votes if it wasn't for their delegation to EDS. It's not that their content is crap either, it's just the fact that big holders tend to upvote the same accounts without branching out. That makes it tough for anyone to make any headway here. I think keeping HIVE free from abuse is important, but I also think a lot of people are getting frustrated by a target that seems to be continuously moving at the whims of some of the larger accounts. I think some empathy on both sides would go a long way.
Curation rewards that have already been paid out to the eds-vote account sure would be classed as profits but not post rewards someone 'could' get by being upvoted imo, at least in the sense of getting votes for delegation/token ownership.
Indeed this is sometime the only way people see ANY votes at all, and while 'big holders' not branching out is part of the equation, limited user base as well as abysmally poor content discovery features are also a large player in this regard.
There is a lot stacked against users trying to get seen by what little eyes are actually active on hive.
I'm a hive witness supporting the blockchain please consider voting for me! - Find out more here!
It's easy to understand why they would lean towards "schemes" like this then. I mean I know when I started here I was doing everything I could to maximize my gains, I probably still do today, but not as much because my account has become pretty sustainable and I have created a decent following. It took seven years though. Like I said in the other comment. I have pulled a lot of my delegations back over the past year. I just think a lot of people get hung up on the problems with HIVE, but no one wants to work together towards solutions.
I've done the same actually, on and off been delegating in one way or another trying to garner votes, get attention and similarly since my account is in a good place I've kinda just said to myself sod it.. I'll just get what I get.
It's easier to complain about a problem than think of a solution. haha. I've come up with 'solutions' to some problems before and they often get shot down.. because people don't seem to think optics and user experience is important.
At this point it makes more sense to just start making my own frontend to implement the ideas I have.
I'm a hive witness supporting the blockchain please consider voting for me! - Find out more here!
Looking forward to seeing what you come up with!
Yeah and projects like these asking for delegations to "curate" but only voting their own bubble sure don't help make life easier for newcomers and retention, although they often like to mention that it's helping the retention of the delegators, meh.
Sending curation rewards back to holders is all fine, it's the author rewards that are the issue as they are also tied into the APR and stuff as they are guaranteeing votes on everyone that delegates/holds tokens (even a spammy account like the freecompliments community account that's quite literally deserted and autoposting the same thing over and over is still getting votes as shown in the video), this points out to the lack of overview and curation. Furthermore this just means that it doesn't matter what you post about or how active you are you will always get that vote as long as you delegate or hold tokens which goes against curation. Autovotes are generally in the same boat if left unchecked for long and if authors start taking advantage of them but with general autovotes the voters aren't getting a delegation from you which this project is.
It's as if most delegators are basically self-voting on a constant basis but through proxy of eds-votes. Imagine if ocdb only voted for people delegating to it or if zingtoken only voted for delegators and token holders no matter what they post about or how much effort goes into the content. It devalues curation and takes away from others having a fair chance at it if they come here and try to be part of the community. You always gotta ask "what if everyone did this" with these kind of schemes.
I think there are bigger issues that are keeping people from having a fair chance here, but that's just my opinion. I'm not a fan of abuse, but I am also not a fan of people calling anything they don't agree with "wrong". Like I said, ultimately, this doesn't impact me that much. I am just trying to think of the people who it would impact if something like EDS had to suddenly go away forever.
No one's asking them to go away or stop doing what they're doing, it's just that they're including author rewards in their equation to market a "high APR" for using their service through guaranteed votes.
Could they survive and thrive without guaranteeing votes to delegators/token holders? I'm sure. Although I guess it depends what else they got going and other future ideas with what the project does, if it's all just about holding tokens, paying out dividends from curation rewards and autovoting those participating it's not that groundbreaking of a project.
I mean, you're involved in zingtoken, right. You understand that you're forfeiting some curation rewards by delegating to it in exchange for tokens. You plan/hope that these tokens will eventually do well in terms of value and/or give you an advantage in the game or different things involved with the project. You're not expecting the project to also go out of its way to give you votes to "make sure you continue delegating to it" or "increase your author rewards based on how much you've delegated to it", but you may get some votes if you ever post about the project - it's not guaranteed.
The projects that guarantee it are relying on the greed of delegators to continue to delegate to them in exchange for votes and it sets the base there - other projects now have to do the same at least to match their APR's to compete.
Yes, that is a good point about ZING. Again, I am just trying to understand all sides of this. I see a lot of complaining in Discord about things like this and I think being fully aware of all sides is better than blindly following the masses. I'd rather push back a little with you on stuff like this to get more info than to just agree with you because I think it's going to ingratiate myself to you. I think my biggest fear is that this is somehow going to draw a line in the sand with HIVE further separating us. We are too small right now to deal with too many things like that.
Dunno what KE has to do with anything here.
Let me try break it down.
You delegate to them, let's say 2500 HP. You are one of 100 people delegating to them 2500 HP = 250,000HP in total.
The 100 people earn tokens for delegating as well.
Every day, they vote 10% on the 100 people delegating to them.
Every week they unstake the curation rewards the 100 people made possible and use it to send out dividends to holders of said token.
Without making it too complicated with buyers of tokens being included in the voting, voting strength being adjusted, etc, already if these 100 delegators are all constantly guaranteed the votes, and if all 100 are constantly posting once daily this means they're effectively getting a vote back in return for their delegation = self-vote on top of curation rewards for their delegation in terms of token holdings.
Basically everyone involved is getting guaranteed returns + some extra through votes, everyone not involved is not getting that little extra and only curation rewards.
The project is only voting for people involved in their scheme, the project is doing better in terms of rewards compared to another project not guaranteeing votes to delegators. The project is also ignoring everyone not delegating or holding/buying their token.
Like, dunno how many different ways to put this in, but votes shouldn't be guaranteed - they are in many cases, I'm someone often getting autovotes from the same people and I'm sure you and many others are too, but these votes aren't coming from our own stake and the autovoter isn't having extra voting power/delegation because of us. That's the big issue here.
I'm pretty sure one of the parts of the equation for KE has to do with how much of your stake you have delegated out. That's why I brought it up. So you are saying self voting would be okay? There are a lot of people who would argue with you on that. They would also effectively zero out accounts for doing it. I've always understood where you are coming from, I just think the barriers for people to be successful here are to vague and too unreasonable. Why can't we focus on fixing that?
If you mouse-over KE on peakd it explains that it's just a simple number that adds your author and curation rewards together and divides it based on your current stake. Delegations actually muddy the KE as you now have another account earning curation rewards in your favor and giving you liquid Hive instead which you can power up to "fake" a good KE rating.
I guess it was something else I saw that took into account HIVE delegated out. Maybe it was a bot that someone created. I could have swore it was part of that equation though.