You don't really fall into what I refer to as 'the whales', you have just over 1000mv and that is totally acceptable, for me.
Many accounts have that much and if 'the community' wanted to express their displeasure with you, you would quickly find that your rewards have gone to bupkis.
IF they were mad enough at you, they could wipe your curation rewards, too.
The collateral damage is much greater, but if they really wanted to zero you, they could.
It's the accounts with 10x that amount, and are untouchable by 'the community' that are really holding us back.
Who joins a game that is rigged against you that hard?
Clearly, the answer is not many.
Especially, when the selling point is, 'like it or lump it'.
It takes most folks a long time to get to that first 1mv, and then they can look forward to being diluted at only 10,000x by folks that have been here from the beginning and the cost basis of their hive is zero.
I understand that when the fork to hive occurred the code wasn't ready for mass adoption.
The memory requirements made the servers and rpc nodes very expensive to run.
Chasing away users would make sense in that scenario.
But, this 'take it or leave it' mantra came with us from the legacy chain.
It had already established our reputation with those that had large audiences outside of hive.
Once those folks got flagged from the platform for 'earning too much', most of the crowd left with them.
Not to return absent some believable shakeup in the management, IF then.
Now, this is another hill we have to overcome.
Nobody wants to believe that 'the whales' have changed their ways, and frankly, they have no real reason to do so.
The overbearing reaping of the newb attractant pool is just as hard as it ever was.
The bottom line doesn't care if the rewards were burned, they weren't distributed to attract newbs and retention takes a hit.
The response was 'but they are dumping it all' and nobody wanted to be reminded that nobody dumps anything if it wasn't voted to them first.
The curation gangs control that, and they are backed by whale stake.
It's nobody's fault, but their own.
IF they really wanted it to change, they would change.
But, as it is, dumping by the newbs is an excellent source of cheap hive and on a 50 year time scale that is invaluable.
The top 20 curating accounts control 50% of the pool, day after day, year after year.
This fact of the hive continues to drive people away.
Many of the folks that have persisted have communicated with me about wondering why they continue to do it.
Their rewards have not ever been 'worth it'.
I have ~450 autovotes set on my autovote account and it rarely votes more than 10 in a day.
Everybody else quit banging their heads on the control freaks' brick wall.
It's hard enough to herd cats, but when you add in what has been done to the crowd all these years, it's starting to look insurmountable.
Perhaps, by design.
I stay because I am making a record for my progeny.
Like I make more money if I upvote only the stuff that gets the most upvotes
Can you expand on that?
Curation used to compound by how much stake voted after you did, but the window involved was expanded to 24 hours, then day 2 to day 4, and then day 5 to 7, or some such.
Each window lowering your curation rewards to give it to the people that voted before you.
Do you think the 'more money' is coming from votes after the initial 24 hour window, or does it happen during the first day?
I can't read the code, so I have to fly by the seat of my pants on these things.
This comment should be a blog post imo. 🤣
I'd give this comment a 100% upvote but you can appreciate why that might be a problem based on this post we are talking under. 🥲
I think one thing that is important is I will not stop being myself. I also do not want you to stop being you. If you are being organically yourself and I'm upvoting you because I like your content and I like how we are friendly, god bless us... but I'll still argue with you all day long and I hope that is ok.
Isn't not voting something because there may be repercussions self censorship?
Hardly a trait we want to encourage in the hive, iyam.
But, certainly a valid opinion to hold, at the least in the past.
IF you support free speech, you have to upvote things that make you angry.
Things that say vile and nasty stuff about you.
Or, you simply don't support free speech.
You support speech that you agree with.
Which is also ok, just absent any claim to supporting free speech.
I'm glad that circumstance has brought you to my timeline, it was getting pretty boring hearing the same drum beat day after day.
After 7 years of mostly daily posting, I was starting to phone it in, and that was an acceptable stopping point for me.
Helped along by some proper downvotes that did have a point.
Perhaps we should start normalizing voting speech that we don't agree with?
And, not just that, but upvoting some things simply because it needed to be said and was brave to say it?
Just because I upvote something does not mean I agree with it, but that is a rare trait in the hive.
I'd be disappointed if you didn't.
I welcome dissent.
I know it may not ring true to your ears, but I have been wrong in the past, and if life hadn't explained the depth of my error to me in no uncertain terms, I would have likely ended up in a much less desirable place.
Yea that’s a good point. I should reevaluate my thought process on that.
I do try to do that personally. I upvote stuff I don't agree with if I think it's an interesting conversation.
That is the attitude that will lead us to mass adoption rather than mass desertion.
It should be pretty clear to all involved that continuing to do what we have done coming on to 10 years now is working, but only in opposite land.
I disagree. Upvoting is comparable to buying a product on Hive. I shouldn't buy a Buhanka because I hate it. I should stick with the F350 4x4 with the 7.3L turbodiesel I like. However, encouraging mass adoption is the same thing as supporting free speech, and to encourage more traffic I should buy more vehicles, or subsidize their purchase (since I can only drive one, to increase traffic I need more drivers, not just more parked vehicles), including Buhankas, because some retards like them for some reason. Not voting on something isn't disapproving of free speech. DV'ing something just because you don't like it and don't want people to say it is disapproving of free speech, like taxing Buhanka sales would cause fewer of them on the roads. Reducing Buhankas also reduces traffic by pushing away Buhanka drivers, and some drivers in the pool of potential traffic I affect won't drive anything else. Upvotes, or subsidizing sales, increases traffic, Downvotes, or taxing sales, decreases traffic, but no vote or impact on sales at all does neither.
These effects are regardless of my support for people to pick whatever they want to drive, which is support for free speech in this example. It is that subjective valuation of preferred vehicles that is curative, that promotes popular speech we want to see more of. That is an entirely different purpose than seeking to increase traffic.
Do you really support Buhankas if you don't buy one?
You won't have evidence, beyond saying you support them, unless you buy one.
Just having drivers brave enough to drive such an ugly van is not reason enough, if you are Buhanka supporting?
source
There is a difference in my purpose to increase traffic than some purpose to support Buhankas. Increasing traffic may require me to support ugly Buhankas because silly people won't drive anything else, and I won't increase the traffic with those people except I support Buhankas.
If we want more traffic, we should do that, as well as speech we're indifferent to. I do encourage speech to encourage traffic by encouraging user retention. I also do it because I like speech I agree with, but only rarely to encourage dissent I do not agree with. Mostly if I upvote speech I disagree with it's because I have the purpose of encouraging user retention.
Edit: upon reflection, I guess it's not that rare I upvote speech I disagree with, because I feel obligated to upvote folks I engage with, and I usually upvote people when I do express disagreement with them regarding reason, and not objectionable behaviour.
IF we claim to support free speech, but don't actually give support to the authors, do we really support free speech. or do we just tolerate it?
Not that tolerating isn't good enough, it's better than flagging people off the platform for words, but is it really support?
'We'...
There are diverse people with diverse opinions. Each of us supports speech we like, and if we don't suppress speech we don't like, people that like that speech will support it.
That's how 'we' support free speech in practice.