That is not at all how Hive SBI works. Hive SBI is account-level curation. You curate an account for ongoing support, and you receive back your 50% curation share as ongoing support on your own account.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Isn't voting the same as curating?
And isn't it also giving back part of what you put in?
I'm having a hard time seeing the difference.
I mean... it's not like Hive Basic Income is giving out its own money, is it? It's own account is not shrinking with each gift.
Besides... why censor any pages that do no harm?
Yes, voting is curating.
When you upvote content, you get 50% of the payout value back as curation rewards. When you sponsor via Hive SBI and it gives upvotes on your behalf, you receive that 50% back as upvotes on your own content instead.
Hive SBI isn't 'giving out' any money at all. It is delivering the upvotes that have been contracted by members of the community who sponsor those accounts for ongoing support. Sometimes that support results in money, but not always, and there is no guarantee (or even promise) that it will. (The delivered votes use up your pending vote value once they are delivered, not when the content pays out, and there is no refund of that vote value if the content doesn't pay out.)
I have no idea. I wasn't part of the downvotes against this giveaway. Since it was using Hive SBI for prizes, one could argue that it was curating accounts based on luck/randomness instead of for the quality of their content. If the downvoters made a case, I didn't see it. I was merely responding to the argument that this giveaway was the same as Hive SBI, which it is not.
Thanks for explaining the subtle differences, but I still think they are close enough, since the lottery page was giving out prizes of Hive Basic Income sponsorships (which distribute votes based on the sponsorship rather than on the strength of content quality).
So if the argument is about content quality, then both cases ignore that aspect before giving the vote.
Like I said, if the content doesn't hurt anyone, then why censor it? Obviously those who participate in the contest think the content is valuable enough to give it their vote, yet certain individuals think that their opinion is more important than that of others and will impose their opinion regardless of what others may think. That is not a free and democratic situation. I was never asked to vote on whether or not this type of content should be banned from the site, so consensus was never achieved nor even asked for. Decentralization and freedom of expression is a lie.