Well, given that Ignite Marketing have been paid many thousands of dollars to basically pay 'influencers' on the web to promote hive, post here and bring new people in - let's see how many leave due to this conflict of interests at the payout level. It would be shockingly stupid (but predictable) if the proposal pool were used to pay for marketing that brings in people from other networks who then leave when they see the 'not random' large downvoting (probably not even understanding how the mechanics work) - rendering the marketing spend a complete waste and even negatively effecting Hive's PR in the process.
Marketing is a thing, it is complicated - it is based on psychology and perception.. The very things that are the only things backing the value of cryptocurrencies in most cases. Sometimes, just because you calculate a formula based purely on maths that leads you to think you are 'right' TM - you can easily be missing out on the bigger picture that includes human factors, psychology and emotion. In this case, I feel you are - or at least are not fully considering the big picture. To me, the difference between these two angles is the difference between systems engineering and information science - the latter does not treat reality as if it is a cold machine.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't believe any influencer worth anything in terms of bringing new people in would waste their time arguing about a few $20 or $50 downvotes that still leave them with significant rewards at the conclusion of the voting process. If I see evidence to the contrary I'll consider it.
I think you are missing the point here. This isn't about 'influencers' missing out on a few dollars in hive rewards, they mostly will already be being paid good money on other networks and through other avenues. The issue is the damage to their own reputation on those networks when they start hyping hive to 'non influencers' who come here and it doesn't live up to the hype. For the most part, the strongest feature of hive atm is it's uncensored communications (as compared to mainstream networks), especially at a time when mainstream networks are on an extreme angle of heavy censorship and control. It doesn't matter whether you can give a lengthy maths explanation as to why heavy downvoting and soft censorship aren't a problem and are fine - the majority will just see a reflection of the control they are trying to escape and go in a different direction, away from hive. The result is that Hive's image can go down instead of up.
I already personally know of quite a long list of medium to medium/large 'influencers' who tried to use steem/hive and turned away for this exact reason. It's obvious, predictable and not going to change without some kind of evolution of understanding taking place here.
A simple solution is to decline/donate rewards. They get the full anti-censorship benefit of Hive with little to no issue of downvoting ever.
since a key foundation of hive is that people get rewarded for posts and posts are made visible based on those rewards, i am sure that the marketing efforts being paid for by ignite will not be telling people that actually they need to ignore these foundations and not worry about visibility on the network. not only does this go completely counter to how social networks generally work, it also goes against principles of competition and marketing.. basically, it goes against everything that most people are most used to. worse than that, it's not explained anywhere in an obvious way and i hightly doubt that ignite are even aware of the logic you are using here.
i suggest maybe you contact them to explain the situation.
This is getting circular, but the key foundation is that people get rewarded for posts based on voting, which includes both upvoting and downvoting (or you can opt out of if you like, and treat it like a low-censorship platform without rewards).
We're five years in here and that has never changed. If someone is marketing on the basis that this is something like Facebook except you get paid for likes, they aren't doing a very good job.
I haven't seen any evidence regarding the brief that ignite are working to and all my comments of any kind in this direction have been ignored by the person handling the situation - so i can't say for sure what they are doing in this regard. I am highlighting a mismatch between your psychology and the psychology of many other people - including the default perception of most people who are not familiar with hive's mechanics, when it comes to 'how such a system should work'. It's fine to say 'the blockchain works this way' (accoarding to how those with the most stake have decided it would run via support for witnesses who share their views), but to also deny that there IS scope for free will choice within the way the blockchain runs that could result in either success or failure for the blockchain is disingenuous. If a police force uses 'laws' in a way that causes friction in the community, it doesn't make much difference if they say 'well, the rules allow for us to do this' - the result will be the same, minimal tourism and low morale in the community.
you should do that on your post
I do. Every post I've made in the past several months and most of the ones I've made in the past several years has donated rewards to @null (which burns Hive to the benefit of all stakeholders) or to a community project which does not benefit me personally.