Hi hivewatchers.
Regardless of $290 or $350 where is that funding going to and why would you need $105K per year to downvote a few posts???
I've reread your proposal and it's vague. Without clear guidelines, instructions or help for people wanting to deal with your team. The website has not been developed and overall it's a small group of people exerting control over the community as it sees fit often to the detriment of that same community.
Where is the breakdown of these costs.
Why is there no clear list of infringements and related penalties.
Why is there no proper structure for reporting, disputing and process.
Where is the breakdown of value saved for the community as you claim.
Where is the cost of all the decent users that have been driven away by your downvotes.
Just zeroing rewards from users is not helping the platform or it's community.
We only have about 5000 active bloggers so these costs are absurd and this set up is not working for the majority of the community. The only reason that it has funding is due to @smooth and @blocktrades voting it.
I don't care about themarkymark. I'm not a huge fan of his. He has done both good and bad for hive but i agree with him on this current topic and have never been afraid to speak my mind. It's not my first year on hive and i've seen the damage that flagging has done over those years setting us back years in terms of user growth and retention.
This is false. There are many other voters. If I unvoted it, for example, it would still be funded (which would not be the case if @blocktrades were the only remaining vote).
Furthermore, if either or both of us changed our vote, there is no way to know how other stakeholders might respond by also changing their votes, potentially changing the outcome yet again.
Your conception of how DHF voting works is a bit off.
You are falsely denying you and blocktrades have controlling stake, just as BlackRock does of corporations, without have the majority of stake.
Suckups pander to you whales. Quit being disingenuous.
I own about 1.5% of Hive.
And BlackRock at al gain controlling interest in stock corporations with as little as 5-10%. Investors largely follow leaders that demonstrate facility attaining ROI, which is why it's calleda controlling interest, rather than a majority interest.
By Blackrock et al, you mean Blackrock + Vanguard + State Street + Fidelity + Other similar.
Even excluding the others, they usually own about 20%+
The first three. It's true they usually have a larger stake than 10%. Different solutions needed for different problems. Hive is remarkably stable with ~3 dozen whales, at least since I've been aboard, and that creates plenty of opportunity to shmooz and coordinate, which I am confident you do well, as does Dan.
You can believe what you like but I don't coordinate anything with anyone. I have only the vaguest notion of who the whales are at this point, other than BT, who I don't know well and don't communicate with regularly.
Firstly, good to see you still around. Been a long time since i saw your name pop up in a comment section.
Fair enough. Your 6m (inc proxy) wouldn't drop it below the return proposal.
I do know how it works and i did say due to you both supporting it.
But blocktrades 23M and your 6M is roughly 80% of the support for the proposal from just two accounts. Not very reflective of community or decentralized.
Now i can't predict the outcomes but if you both stopped supporting it then it's hard to see the proposal getting over the return limit.
What you're ignoring is that there may well be other large stakeholders would vote for it if one or both of us didn't.
I can tell you for sure that I don't bother to vote for some proposals even if I support them for the simple reason that I see they're already approved and they don't need my vote. If they started to drop down too much on the list, I'd vote for them.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that voting is dynamic and you can't look at static votes as telling the conclusive "reason" why it is or isn't approved.