Tell me how I at this point in time should not just translate what you're saying in an effort to abuse curation when you time after time keep saying that we are abusing the rewards pool for our own self interest by voting on things that do NOT benefit us personally in any way but all of Hive itself.
With your logic everyone voting on @hbd.funder comments is also doing it out of self-interest?
You keep ignoring VOTE BUYING from freecompliments and saying they're "Doing good for hive" so we should allow it.
You keep ignoring that voting on automated non-content as long as it promises to buy random layer 2 token with half of the rewards because it's "good for hive" so we should allow it.
Sorry but you keep time and time again using the same obvious wrong accusations that anyone can provably show you are wrong to attempt to justify misuse of curation for small parts of the ecosystem that only benefit a small portion of hive stakeholders using the Hive reward pool, is starting to sound like you either have some issues in the understanding department or you're just a malicious actor attempting to get your will through at all cost of how curation should be misused at the benefit of a few. It's becoming weird to the point where I don't really know how I can explain it to you in a different way or a different language.
You keep insisting that just because people have bought/earned stake, they should use it however they like and ignore the fact that this ends up hurting authors who don't have stake because as has been proven by some of the projects mentioned above and some still ongoing, it ends up benefiting only those with stake and those perpatrating the scheme that's basically self-voting the delegators with all their stake back rather than looking at other things to curate to retent and grow the users in the ecosystem.
I'm not taking it personally but I'm questioning your agenda at this point.
If projects need help, I know mine do and I keep spending countless hive at the bottom of the market trying to keep it alive while I know others are suffering as well, they need to come up with ways to legitimately get them. Not by abusing curation, the one thing that if kept fair and working makes this platform stand out from web2 and all other chains, if not, we may as well just be proof of stake with content just being there for no reason.
I offered an olive branch to rising star, they have an active community, they can set a default beneficiary on posts to support the project, we can provide some voting power to CURATE posts and they may earn some legitimate addtional rewards that way that the community decides if they want to give it to them or not. Posts should be curated whether they GIVE beneficiaries or not.
You're defending projects that go against this principle, projects that only upvote people who delegate to them, projects that only upvote people who give them beneficiaries, etc, while ignoring the content, the users and their social activity, etc.
These bubbles create a closed circle where new users with no stake don't get curated, similar to vote trading, similar to hsbi/eds, etc. Yes those are all problems, come up with how we can combat them than attempting to use them as an excuse to accuse me of abusing the reward pool while ignoring others because I'm scared or have some interest in letting them abuse the reward pool.
I gave you one solution, now you come up with one, this circling around the same garbage just to try and allow curation misuse is getting old and I won't entertain it any longer.
Maybe @splinterlands would be interested in sharing their voting power with other gaming communities on hive as well as I know they have plenty. cc @azircon
I don't understand the details of this discussion yet, seems long and with lot of nuances. @stickupboys can you write a short post and explain your point of view. I don't play rising star and will not play. I don't even know what that is. I do play Splinterlands and I will continue to play.
I personally use the term abuse a lot and I will use it as I see fit. If a game economy depends on hive curation upvotes then it's not a game at all it is just a faucet to get hive curation to survive. That's my view.
PS. Stickupboys, I have seen you around for a long time, but just checked your KE ratio is 62! Boy! That’s a lot! :)
I'm a massive fan of KE but as we all know it doesn't tell the whole story. The SUBs invested over 1600 Hive when they started 4 years ago, that's a lot more than most people.
They must have rewarded more than 1600, right? Again I have no context but just glancing through the discussion I can see many have significant issues with whatever they are doing
Tell me how I at this point in time should not just translate what you're saying in an effort to abuse curation when you time after time keep saying that we are abusing the rewards pool for our own self interest by voting on things that do NOT benefit us personally in any way but all of Hive itself.
With your logic everyone voting on @hbd.funder comments is also doing it out of self-interest?
You keep ignoring VOTE BUYING from freecompliments and saying they're "Doing good for hive" so we should allow it.
You keep ignoring that voting on automated non-content as long as it promises to buy random layer 2 token with half of the rewards because it's "good for hive" so we should allow it.
Sorry but you keep time and time again using the same obvious wrong accusations that anyone can provably show you are wrong to attempt to justify misuse of curation for small parts of the ecosystem that only benefit a small portion of hive stakeholders using the Hive reward pool, is starting to sound like you either have some issues in the understanding department or you're just a malicious actor attempting to get your will through at all cost of how curation should be misused at the benefit of a few. It's becoming weird to the point where I don't really know how I can explain it to you in a different way or a different language.
You keep insisting that just because people have bought/earned stake, they should use it however they like and ignore the fact that this ends up hurting authors who don't have stake because as has been proven by some of the projects mentioned above and some still ongoing, it ends up benefiting only those with stake and those perpatrating the scheme that's basically self-voting the delegators with all their stake back rather than looking at other things to curate to retent and grow the users in the ecosystem.
a
I'm not taking it personally but I'm questioning your agenda at this point.
If projects need help, I know mine do and I keep spending countless hive at the bottom of the market trying to keep it alive while I know others are suffering as well, they need to come up with ways to legitimately get them. Not by abusing curation, the one thing that if kept fair and working makes this platform stand out from web2 and all other chains, if not, we may as well just be proof of stake with content just being there for no reason.
I offered an olive branch to rising star, they have an active community, they can set a default beneficiary on posts to support the project, we can provide some voting power to CURATE posts and they may earn some legitimate addtional rewards that way that the community decides if they want to give it to them or not. Posts should be curated whether they GIVE beneficiaries or not.
You're defending projects that go against this principle, projects that only upvote people who delegate to them, projects that only upvote people who give them beneficiaries, etc, while ignoring the content, the users and their social activity, etc.
These bubbles create a closed circle where new users with no stake don't get curated, similar to vote trading, similar to hsbi/eds, etc. Yes those are all problems, come up with how we can combat them than attempting to use them as an excuse to accuse me of abusing the reward pool while ignoring others because I'm scared or have some interest in letting them abuse the reward pool.
I gave you one solution, now you come up with one, this circling around the same garbage just to try and allow curation misuse is getting old and I won't entertain it any longer.
a
a
Maybe @splinterlands would be interested in sharing their voting power with other gaming communities on hive as well as I know they have plenty. cc @azircon
I don't understand the details of this discussion yet, seems long and with lot of nuances. @stickupboys can you write a short post and explain your point of view. I don't play rising star and will not play. I don't even know what that is. I do play Splinterlands and I will continue to play.
I personally use the term abuse a lot and I will use it as I see fit. If a game economy depends on hive curation upvotes then it's not a game at all it is just a faucet to get hive curation to survive. That's my view.
PS. Stickupboys, I have seen you around for a long time, but just checked your KE ratio is 62! Boy! That’s a lot! :)
I'm a massive fan of KE but as we all know it doesn't tell the whole story. The SUBs invested over 1600 Hive when they started 4 years ago, that's a lot more than most people.
a
They must have rewarded more than 1600, right? Again I have no context but just glancing through the discussion I can see many have significant issues with whatever they are doing
a