Sure, 20% as beneficiary, but here is the thing... these 20% have opened up way more support from @project.hope team and community than any other 'curation' project that exists around here for way more time.
Specially because a vote is only a part of the project, which includes looking for people that actually try to create quality content, and incentivizing the project member not to only vote for rewards, but actually engage with the authors (wow, what an amazing concept right? incentives to engage the community...)
I have been on this blockchain for around 5 years, and even after trying to engage on a lot of older projects, @project.hope was actually the only one that came after me, and asked if I wanted to join their project, explaining how everything worked.
Sure, some plagiarized posts go through one time or another, but instead of "punishing" the user for doing something wrong, the community works to make that user understand why what he did was wrong.
You know, to act as community.
What make things more interesting is that the same "logic" you are talking about doesn't apply to communities where these "white knights" that protect the blockchain are participants of.
Here is the problem with HIVE right now @enforcer48, (actually still the same problem from the old days):
If the big stakeholders of this platform see someone/some project that isn't doing exactly as they think things should be done (usually in a way that benefits them), the hostility grows, and instead of accepting that everyone should have the liberty of trying different stuff (some limits implied, of course, on clear abuse type of content, like spam), some try to take that thing down as fast as possible.
It's a huge problem of witness acting as if they 'owned' the blockchain, but the truth is, witnesses are supposed to be providing a service to the whole community, not the other way around.
So, it seems you are trying to put a label of scam on a project that is trying to do something that a place like HIVE was supposed to allow everyone to: create a community....
Any project that relies solely on votes is garbage. Period.
What has voting done for this platform for the past few years? You think that project is unique?
Look what happened to Utopian?
For someone who pretends to write sound "financial" articles, how clueless are you to think that's a sustainable model?
I prefer useful dapps over mindless upvoting shit nobody reads any day. Your logic is no better than the geniuses that continually tag only #hive on Twitter.
Blogging-ONLY is a damn failed concept. Stop trying to make it the sole purpose of the blockchain. And stop supporting the "cash out only" culture.
Never said blogging is the sole purpose of this chain, but since this model is the foundation of this chain, and actually the only part of it that is well recognized and associated with the HIVE brand, it is just stupid to ignore it completely.
It's like trying to make Bitcoin stop being a project focused on creating a digital cash system to suddenly shift completely from it's core function to become a dapp platform.
And actually, the problem with HIVE not being economic sustainable doesn't have anything related to being a blogging platform or not, but the whole economic model is flawed from the beginning. The content creation is only first and still the main way the tokens are distributed. (The main trend of the HIVE price is down, unless there is a demand increase. Economy 101 you know...)
Your argument for killing the content creation side as a mean of token distribution shows more that you want to keep the coins flowing to the pockets of those that already have a lot of them (aka witness), instead of allowing more people to have access to it and over time, create a solid economy of dapps, products and a lot of other possible stuff.
The Blogging part of this experiment is failing not because it is a failed concept, but because those that were supposed to improve this foundation are more busy trying to find ways to fill their own pockets while praising how "awesome" this blockchain is to convince clueless people to buy into a half-baked project.
Meanwhile, something like @engrave, a project with the potential to become a Wordpress based on a blockchain doesn't seem to attract much attention from big stakeholders.
Also, funny question: If blogging is such a failure, why you still do it regularly and reap the rewards from it?
Reaping what rewards? You mean all the funds I kept inside this ecosystem while the value continues to dwindle as someone like you cash out because $10 is actually a significant amount where you live?
I’m sorry, but even the games here require you to pay with HIVE. So, if I’m not buying, I need to get them from somewhere.
I don’t need some group who perpetually cash out the bulk of what they earn to tell me what I should value.
I’m not advocating to kill content. I’m arguing to stop putting it on a pedestal because it ain’t some novel concept.
Build stuff people want to use. Build stuff people want to replace. Not reinventing the wheel, slap blockchain on it, and expect people to come flocking to it. Especially those blog-centric ideas.
Your argument for killing the content creation side as a mean of token distribution shows more that you want to keep the coins flowing to the pockets of those that already have a lot of them (aka witness), instead of allowing more people to have access to it and over time, create a solid economy of dapps, products and a lot of other possible stuff.
I would love to see what did you manage to achieve so far @enforcer48, except of constant complaining.
Surprise us (assuming you can).
On one hand people like yourself are comparing trending on steemit and trending page on hive, to prove that hive is doing better. And whenever it's convinient - you attack those content creators. It's actually quite amusing.
User behind @enforcer48 seem to have personal reason to dislike me and I'm really not sure if it make any sense to try to convince him to see things from different angle.
And being called "human garbage" by this particular person doesn't surprisse me a bit. He proved many times to be hostile toward our project and our efforts.
Defending scammy behaviors, plagiarists, etc. are some of the gripes people have against him.
Some dislike him for using both platforms.
But hey, continue to be exploited for your cheap labor by paying him 20%.
Sure, 20% as beneficiary, but here is the thing... these 20% have opened up way more support from @project.hope team and community than any other 'curation' project that exists around here for way more time.
Specially because a vote is only a part of the project, which includes looking for people that actually try to create quality content, and incentivizing the project member not to only vote for rewards, but actually engage with the authors (wow, what an amazing concept right? incentives to engage the community...)
I have been on this blockchain for around 5 years, and even after trying to engage on a lot of older projects, @project.hope was actually the only one that came after me, and asked if I wanted to join their project, explaining how everything worked.
Sure, some plagiarized posts go through one time or another, but instead of "punishing" the user for doing something wrong, the community works to make that user understand why what he did was wrong.
You know, to act as community.
What make things more interesting is that the same "logic" you are talking about doesn't apply to communities where these "white knights" that protect the blockchain are participants of.
Here is the problem with HIVE right now @enforcer48, (actually still the same problem from the old days):
If the big stakeholders of this platform see someone/some project that isn't doing exactly as they think things should be done (usually in a way that benefits them), the hostility grows, and instead of accepting that everyone should have the liberty of trying different stuff (some limits implied, of course, on clear abuse type of content, like spam), some try to take that thing down as fast as possible.
It's a huge problem of witness acting as if they 'owned' the blockchain, but the truth is, witnesses are supposed to be providing a service to the whole community, not the other way around.
So, it seems you are trying to put a label of scam on a project that is trying to do something that a place like HIVE was supposed to allow everyone to: create a community....
Any project that relies solely on votes is garbage. Period.
What has voting done for this platform for the past few years? You think that project is unique?
Look what happened to Utopian?
For someone who pretends to write sound "financial" articles, how clueless are you to think that's a sustainable model?
I prefer useful dapps over mindless upvoting shit nobody reads any day. Your logic is no better than the geniuses that continually tag only #hive on Twitter.
Blogging-ONLY is a damn failed concept. Stop trying to make it the sole purpose of the blockchain. And stop supporting the "cash out only" culture.
Never said blogging is the sole purpose of this chain, but since this model is the foundation of this chain, and actually the only part of it that is well recognized and associated with the HIVE brand, it is just stupid to ignore it completely.
It's like trying to make Bitcoin stop being a project focused on creating a digital cash system to suddenly shift completely from it's core function to become a dapp platform.
And actually, the problem with HIVE not being economic sustainable doesn't have anything related to being a blogging platform or not, but the whole economic model is flawed from the beginning. The content creation is only first and still the main way the tokens are distributed. (The main trend of the HIVE price is down, unless there is a demand increase. Economy 101 you know...)
Your argument for killing the content creation side as a mean of token distribution shows more that you want to keep the coins flowing to the pockets of those that already have a lot of them (aka witness), instead of allowing more people to have access to it and over time, create a solid economy of dapps, products and a lot of other possible stuff.
The Blogging part of this experiment is failing not because it is a failed concept, but because those that were supposed to improve this foundation are more busy trying to find ways to fill their own pockets while praising how "awesome" this blockchain is to convince clueless people to buy into a half-baked project.
Meanwhile, something like @engrave, a project with the potential to become a Wordpress based on a blockchain doesn't seem to attract much attention from big stakeholders.
Also, funny question: If blogging is such a failure, why you still do it regularly and reap the rewards from it?
Reaping what rewards? You mean all the funds I kept inside this ecosystem while the value continues to dwindle as someone like you cash out because $10 is actually a significant amount where you live?
I’m sorry, but even the games here require you to pay with HIVE. So, if I’m not buying, I need to get them from somewhere.
I don’t need some group who perpetually cash out the bulk of what they earn to tell me what I should value.
I’m not advocating to kill content. I’m arguing to stop putting it on a pedestal because it ain’t some novel concept.
Build stuff people want to use. Build stuff people want to replace. Not reinventing the wheel, slap blockchain on it, and expect people to come flocking to it. Especially those blog-centric ideas.
It's hard not to agree with you on this one.
Because your brains are so dead you can’t think of anything outside of “content creation” as a mean of distribution.
I wonder how other chains do it? Guess they are broken too.
I would love to see what did you manage to achieve so far @enforcer48, except of constant complaining.
Surprise us (assuming you can).
On one hand people like yourself are comparing trending on steemit and trending page on hive, to prove that hive is doing better. And whenever it's convinient - you attack those content creators. It's actually quite amusing.
Dear @phgnomo
User behind @enforcer48 seem to have personal reason to dislike me and I'm really not sure if it make any sense to try to convince him to see things from different angle.
And being called "human garbage" by this particular person doesn't surprisse me a bit. He proved many times to be hostile toward our project and our efforts.
Yours,
@crypto.piotr