If I see someone buy stock in a company, I don't get mad because they get paid dividends for holding that stock.
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.
Oh no worries, I just started running out of other ways I could come up with to explain the issue with this kind of voting.
Honestly I think this separates us a lot more.
also every small tiny project needing to have their own discord server xD