Let's switch up the arguments, shall we? Try to change my mind that the current reward mechanism & bad-actor punishment is NOT going to scale well over 100k or even millions of users.
Let's switch up the arguments, shall we? Try to change my mind that the current reward mechanism & bad-actor punishment is NOT going to scale well over 100k or even millions of users.
First thing is needed in hive is fixing of curation curve. Afterwards everything can scale.
Is generic content a real problem?
I don't think so . Do you think that facebook and twitter is full of information in every word written there?
Twitter and Facebook does not have rewards.
Ohh! Then I can say professional writers are not writing for few dollars payment. (Forget the cents payment for most of the user here)
Curation shouldn't be part of the 1st layer. The current form of curation is a failed system btw IMO. You can see it by the voting activity of bid-bots such as appreciator & upmewhale. They're upvoting new content to maximize their rewards, regardless if it's trash. Other content, which would deserve higher rewards, they're not voting as it would reduce their own rewards.
I think you are confused with some of the basic terms of this blockchain and it should not be the case with someone who is one of top 20 witness.
Proof-of-Brain was supposed to be manual human engagement but all you can see is curation sniping and automated votes.
If an account is manually voting then how can you say its a bot??
You do currently have 800k HP, why not make start making a difference yourself by manually voting yourself? I would say your voting pattern is similar to a bot because you mostly follow trails.
Only curation snipers are able to maximize their rewards and I think you know this better from Smartsteem days. By curating manually, you can just barely reach to break-even.
Why should anyone contribute and encourage curation sniping and automated effort by voting after them? Imagine If everyone start to do the exact same thing, things would be more worse. It is still better to promote newbies than to maximize rewards from popular authors, you know very well its easy to do so.
I think the main problem is automation(curation snipers who try to maximize their reward by voting at 3-4 minutes). Just try to ban automated votes and you'll see actual curation and more organic engagement. You might have noticed it in first two weeks when Hive was born. We all were able to see how popular authors were just like anyone else and organic votes were more real.
I see you have your own reason to follow some good trails and you are not one of the curation snipers but there are some people in top 20 who only curation snipe all day and just maximize their rewards on personal account by delegated stake, which the main problem.
I'm new and cryptomonies in a decentralized network is not my forte, I come from a centralized system... There are many things I don't understand well, they talk about how to lift the coin and the leeches in the pool... and they criticize you for curing the content of new users, right? But I arrived four months ago I discovered myself as an artist because you saw something in my content that nobody else saw.
So I'm wondering, how do you see the real talent in the garbage if you just follow a healing path and do an automatic voting cure? I receive an automatic vote and I think that whoever gives it to me has never seen my content, they don't know if it is valuable or rubbish.
Second, we need big investors, but how do we attract them if we are a community without many users?
How do we position a currency that nobody uses?
It is my humble opinion, that I am a very small fish in this net.
Exactly!
Hive will be used, we don't need a global reward pool for that. (https://peakd.com/hive/@blocktrades/hive-s-future-as-a-2nd-layer-blockchain-network)
I wasn't confused and meant what I said. Thanks.
No one is interested in fixing the complex curation curve while every one knows it is broke.
What give me more pain is business ideas like reward.app. If witness want to promote their own business instead of fixing a broke thing then whole debate of Hive improvement is just a lie.
Ofcourse no one wants to talk about Bid-Bot 2.0 and it shows their commitment to 'Content Discovery', which many people wanted to address before
What do you mean by "By curating manually, you can just barely reach to break-even."
To break even with what?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that (at least when one's HP reaches orca territory) that the curation in absolute terms is still fairly large, even if it could be much better with "curation sniping".
Everyone likes to accuse us of maximizing curation rewards but facts are different. They are normally talking about APR or average efficiency according to effective HP, so accordingly efficiency applies the same way on Orca or Whale.
Consider these facts from Hivestats as an example:
100% efficiency means you are not losing or gaining anything according to your effective SP. Less than 100 means you are losing something.
To achieve more than 100, it is only possible via curation sniping(automated votes within first 3-4 minutes).
Its easier to gain more efficiency by choosing popular authors and it takes considerably less effort than voting manually. By choosing to do curation sniping, you can just sit back, relax and criticize all day long.
thanks for pointing this out, but I still don't quite get it 😅 (which is a bit embarrassing for being here for almost 3 years)...
"100% efficiency means you are not losing or gaining anything according to your effective SP."
I assume this refers to the inflation that we are all subjected to? If my APR is under 100%, then my staked HP loses voting power as the inflation is higher than the growth of my stake? Is this correct?
If so, then this isn't necessarily so problematic as:
I might still earn that difference in form of author rewards, growing my stake (if powered up)
If you are an orca or whale it just means that your voting power will decrease perhaps by as much as 4% annually (see the quote from @grampo). But in absolute terms you are still making tons of Hive (even in 5 years (which would then be about 17% less, in fact this decrease gets slower as the years go by)). Granted, you have to be an orca or higher for this not to bother you...
In fact, I think especially the last point (if correct) should be a huge motivation for large stakeholders to vote more freely. Of course there is the human need for more (greed) which mitigates this, but still; speaking for myself, if I ever reach 100k, I wouldn't be bothered by this so much (I hope ;)
If this analysis is correct, then the biggest problem from this would be that it starkly favors larger stakeholders as especially newcommers would have to maximize their APR to "catch up". Something that should be addressed, otherwise Hive is likely never able to retain its users. Although this problem is limited to the curation side of things.
Its an estimate of upcoming pending rewards of one week and does not refer to inflation
All the people who are mostly criticizing are whales and you might see the same people spreading misinformation intentionally. It does not bother me at all and it reminds me of this quote:
I can't change your mind. The global reward pool must be done away with.
The only way rewards can work is within targeted communities where the rules and the etiquette is understood for that manageable community. If the global reward pool can equitably redirected toward communities, so be it, but the future is with self monetising communities for sure.
Make your own fork then, eh?
I think NFTs and communities are the answer, running an entire fork of Hive so that 200 people can have a community is never going to be reasonable.
Neither is managing this one to only benefit 200.
I agree, more users solves many issues.
It would be nice to return to the starry eyed users we were in 2016 but, rich greedy f**ks ruined that.
Somebody I won't name made vote selling easier to hide and access, and the slope has been downhill ever since.
Nobody listens if their supper depends on not hearing.
In theory it could/should work. I am a strong believer that the main metric for Hive coin valuation is the user-base growth. More users, higher the price. So as tens of thousands or millions join the network, this growth will be reflected in Hive's price.
Since reward distribution is kinda calculated, displayed, and distributed in HBD (or USD for simplicity), the higher Hive price will easily be able to reward millions. Even if users will get much less Hive coins, in HBD terms value would still be decent enough to participate.
So in theory it is more than possible. But this requires high stakeholders collectively embracing the long term gain strategy and focus their reward distribution influence to incentivize participation. Any high stake holder will be much better off with $10, $100, $300 price rather than accumulating short term rewards in the form of authors rewards, curation rewards, or interests.
Reward distribution is not broken, it just requires a lot of time and effort. Most stakeholders don't have that time to be sitting at the computer curating and properly distributing rewards. But at the same time there are communities who are putting in work to grow their user-base. Bridges between these need to be built for more effective and efficient reward distribution.
Any form of content should be acceptable, communities should be able to self moderate based on the engagement, interest, etc and be able to deal with abuse.
Most importantly though, where Hive fails is rewarding content consumption. Content creators are rewarded, curators with decent HP are rewarded, stakeholders are rewarded, but the crucial majority of the economy - low HP content consumers are not really rewarded. If we can solve this, then we will be able to attract millions. Because vast majority of the users are content consumers and not content creators. Our reward distribution system turns content consumers into content creators, because that is the main way anybody can be rewarded in the economy.
One of the solutions for this can be building a Hive Browser. If we have a Hive Browser, it may serve as a Hive Hub for Hive Apps. Not only users can be rewarded for using the Hive Browsers, they will easily be able to discover all Apps on Hive. Think of it as an App Store for apps on your phone. Something like this will even bring in more talented developers to the platform.
Yes, I know there is Brave browser already. I would think Hive Browser can be much better, because it can connect to its own blockchain, create a bridge between developers of various apps and make all apps be easily discoverable by users.
If we get more users, then all influencers will follow. What influencers, content creators, apps and games developers really want is discoverability and audience.
I think you can build a Hive Browser and even get it funded by HDF. :)
cool ideas!
Thank You!
I don't really get your point there TBH. :/ Are you in favour of the global rewards pool or not?
I was just trying to answer the question in the title. I wasn't comparing one system to another.
But yes, I am in favor of global rewards pool. Another alternative could be just removing the global pool completely and let SMTs takeover the rewards distribution once they arrive.
Absolutely not - for hive to be success we need to have investors who would build their own community and reward them based on their investments.
If by scale you mean trying to police a hord of reward pool leeches the answer is no. If I remember correctly Dan Larimer designed the system as a way to distribute the coin and the whole idea was that the users would moderate the allocation of the rewards (the famous "crab bucket" example described in the original steem white paper). Under this conception even "bad actors" do useful work by selling on the open market (and thus helping in the coin distribution). In the real world the majority of ordinary users don't try to moderate the reward allocation.
So no, I will not try to change your mind.
btw, I think the new system dan came up with on voice is just as flawed, maybe even more.
Another thing to consider is that unless the price scales exponentially, with such a big user base, would the reward pool even matter?
That's a good point. But I guess if Hive had millions of users, the price had to follow.
Yeah, I just wonder if it would follow to the same extent. Up until now, it seems like the less people there are, the greater the rewards are.
The global reward pool is fine, but we need to be able to reward people for activites that are not just blog posts.
this is the only way to grow a true 2nd layer
It doesn't now, why should it scale?
--> SMT
This isn't my own view, but one could say that there will be unfairness and problems with the current model, and that it will be worse with scale, but it remains better than an alternative model. Or that it is too risky to change it.
Personally, I don't know, still thinking about it, and want to understand it better.
Congratulations @therealwolf! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board And compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
The thing is that it's somehow obvious that current system doesn't work effectively, at least not from investors point of view. We have the largest community and it seems that regardless of it we can't convince investors to participate.
Something needs to change. I'm putting all my hope into SMT's.
I can feel it, men. Law of hive considers what I do is not worth much.
First you should get those 100k users and then think how to deal with real not imaginary issues.
It's too late by then.
https://hive.blog/hive-133987/@arcange/hive-statistics-20200726-en
Btw, if this is bull run and not distribution, then we are going to have those 100k till the end of this year or next year.
For me the question is - why people should come to HIVE at all. It is easier just to buy and hold some popular tokens. Three years later there still is no clear answer to this question.
accounts !== people.
Many accounts are bots, sockpuppets, or other accounts-of-few.
Hive.Blog is not HIVE, you're aware of that, right? People don't have to come to HIVE. Apps have to adopt the Hive blockchain + currency and people will use HIVE through those apps.
But why they should do that?
I would like them to do it, too. But I do not have even one reason why they should do that. I was hoping that you could tell that.
I would think it will scale just fine in a technical sense up until there are so many posts and things being rewarded that everyone gets payed 0.001hp or something, at which point it kinda breaks.
I would say that when SMTs are released hive will basically turn into etherium.
Hive will end up as the base core currency required to stake in order to run the SMTs and place like hive.blog, peakd and leo finance will make their own tokens and use those to rewards content in their own ways. At this point the hive reward pool could be retired in favour of a basic inflationary stake mechanism or something and basically be used as fuel to do transactions on the blockchain.
It doesn't matter how many no effort users we have, they add nothing to the chain.
You, at least, do something.
What exactly I'm not sure, but you are not helping your position by advocating for no effort rewards, iyam.
Play the game, or gtfo.
Stop trying to line your own pockets while contributing nothing, or worse than nothing, eh?
You could start by providing value with your comments, instead of this useless waste of chain-space monologue you're holding. 😂
Well, at least I haven't made vote selling easier to access while obscuring the fact.
It's ok, just keep building, eh?
When it gets to where it needs to be, we will jump ship and you can have all the pool to yourself.
You and your greedy friends can kill the golden goose if you like.
You know, because short term profits are paramount.
Rewards would work much better with millions of users rather than a handful of users collecting most of the rewards. But it is clear we need to remove rewards off the main token.
how would then hive be distributed if you don't distribute it by voting with your stake?
It would become a utility token. Rewards would be distributed by SMTs.
ok i am a noob in this, i spend some time reading. I understand the part of utility token where you own it so you can use the network (for example, you have resource credits so you can transact on hive). Only thing that i found on distribution of it, is mostly connected to ICO's and initial token distribution. I found nothing about distributing tokens after the initial distribution. So will there be no further distribution? would just witnesses get new tokens, or maybe would it be distributed to people who have staked hive...
If this is something that you think i should know and you don't want to write about it, feel free to share some useful links.
There is no current plans for anything but it has been discussed a few times. Right now it is just an idea.
I would think hive as a base utility token would have a modest inflation with distribution to hp holder, witnesses and the DHF.
People will want to have Hive still as it'll probably still be needed for governance, transacting among other things
thing i was thinking, and i could be wrong as my knowledge is really week, is will that make it more centralized.
one of the big points, even from steem time and especially after steemit stake was moved, was how distribution is getting more and more decentralized, and how whales don't have that much control as they used to. If all distribution goes to hp holders, witnesses and dhf would not that move it to more centralization?
First of all, if the global reward pool were to be removed, we would prob. also reduce inflation overall. Besides that, right now, many small people are selling their HIVE, and who is buying it? The accumulators aka the whales.
Even with individual reward pools and tipping, I do think there will still be a better distribution than on any other currency, even if whales keep 80% and give 20% away.
The only reason it would not work and never did, is the incredibly terrible distribution of stakes.
If the big stakeholders did not act like they won their HIVE/STEEM at a bubble gum machine, the reward system would work fine.
It's only because of their ignorance and laziness that services like yours were a success in the first place. When this place was fresh, your business would have been flagged to shreds before it had even started.
After a short while, the big players started colluding and now we have rewards absolutely independent of content.
I think at this point everyone can agree, that @ned picks some weird ass associates and with a bunch of them being STILL top stakeholders, this project seems doomed.
The reward mechanism is fine.
Much like anything 'game-theory', it only works with enough rational players, though.
Funny how even after all these years, people still point the finger at me. lol
I didn't invent bid-bots, you know that, right? 😉
The current system is like the platform of
National Treasure 2, where you can balance it out, even going from one extreme to the other (buying-votes -- EiP), but you can't fix it unless you find a way to get off it.It wasn't you, who started it.
It was basically ned, when he introduced a linear reward function. Then bernie started with randowhale.
...
I just find it hypocritical to first actively farm the rewardpool and then to complain about it afterwards, once you got your stash sorted.
I still think a progressive function like x^2 could solve this, as it incentivizes cummulation of votes and would encourage competition. But that seems totally off the table. And I am tired of explaining this. It was all in the code, you know ...
Most people dumped and sold their stake other wise there would be a better distribution.
That is partially correct.
There are leeches, who never did anything more than being an early miner/ ned's (or whoever's) buddy, ...
I don't know how this worked, but I know for sure: @riverhead didn't do shit, for example.