Dan, I'm a straight thinker. Bid-bots and self-voting have always been a hacky method for stakeholders to optimize their returns. This can be fixed by giving them an option to opt-out of curation.
Why? We have 4 years worth of data, that shows: giving away stake for free isn't efficient. I know you believe in it, that's fine. You're a visionary, you see the big picture, I respect you for that. But if the value proposition for HIVE tokens is going to be RC credits/governance in the end, it's mostly going to be bigger stakeholders (apps/businesses/investors) buying up the stake. So does it matter how the tokens are going to be mined?
What's so horrible about people needing to buy into HIVE? At least they'd have a good reason to hold onto their stake. Or would you argue that BTC can't be distributed without PoB?
BTC had years at virtually free prices, aka 10k BTC pizza, etc. Many early Bitcoiners, Roger Ver, for example, gave Bitcoin away free in mass. It's how you build a network. It's not the only way, you can have people buy into your token, sure, but there is a reason Bitcoin is one of the most distributed currencies around. For a token that stores wealth, naturally, it'll rise into fewer hands, but it certainly did not start out that way.
I've written a post about opt-out for curation to earn a similar, yet slightly smaller ROI than curators would get. I think there should be a way not to play the game if you don't want. If we had this, people wouldn't care what others did with their stake. When people get staking rewards they usually just sell them on the market anyway, creating selling pressure. With Hive, a lot of people power up the Hive and do not sell, so it actually results in less sell pressure than normal staking does.
This! enjoy coming here reading, being involved. Have issues lately mixing pleasure with investing. thought at one stage i could combine both but hive code currently doesn't align the two for me.
what do you next of my next comment to this?
If i understand this correctly. id set up two accounts. one for investment - keep at 100% and a smaller one to vote, have fun and communicate with.
The power down time - really does affect me also though. Granted, long term investing, but when something has the potential to go from 10c to $1.00 in a matter of weeks - Doesn't seem smart to be all locked up.
no need for 2 accounts. Simply, once your voting power reaches 100% you earn extra interest. When it is below 100% you earn the normal interest that pays out currently.
Example: Curation on avg pays 10-15% lets say. When your voting power reaches 100%, you earn 8-9% interest. That is 10-20%+ lower than the avg curator makes, however you still earn a decent amount and isnt the end of the world if you don't curator for a month or two, or ever. 8% vs 10% is not a deathnail to anyones stake in the form of being diluted.
Sounds good (without thinking of any potential pitfalls) 4 to 6 week power down, make it fair between auto voters and manual, and i'll be a happy camper ........ at least until we find an exploit that cant be solved by a few downvotes lol.
But how do we prevent curation collusion, where curators upvote their buddies/sockpuppets to gain curation + author rewards? If the auto staking-revenue would be curation + author, it would remove the need to curate unfairly and give content creators a reason to level up their content.
So you're referring to the fact that people can make curation + author by self voting. I believe free down votes will stop this. We have stopped the biggest, longest abusers of the system with free downvotes, so much so that pretty much every abuser has turned legit/semi-legit curator. We couldn't give passive stakers the equivalent of what self voters make, because self voters that milk the system is abusive and we don't want to set the standard at "you must abuse to earn at least what you'd make on passive."
An idea that just hit me would be, if your VP is sitting at 100% you automatically earn interest (slightly smaller than avg curation would get.) That way, you can vote when you want, if you don't, you earn a bit less but at the cost of not having to do anything. Interest paid this way could be in the form of HP to lock them in. This is also cool because now it's compounding interest, IE powering up HP creates more HP, etc. Just a thought. So instead of "opting out" in some complicated way, you simply don't vote. And if you want to vote, you can but you won't earn that interest again until you are full HP.
Interesting idea. Please do make a post about it.
read my mind
I like this idea. It sounds simple to understand and fair to the different type of stake holders.
Posted using Dapplr
TBH I would love this. I swung the idea by some fence sitting investors when it came to Hive and they liked the idea. Let's see if the community likes the idea, I'll bang on about it.
interesting!
I don't think it matters. What really matters here is the frontends to improve the user experience and and the community's desire to want more users...