I only had time to scan read this, but your basic premise is deeply flawed, IMO. "skin in the game" means you have a vested in interest in something doing well. It almost always leads to more favorable decision-making.
Even your examples are off-base. I believe you get much better outcomes typically when you hire a lawyer or a doctor who is your friend than when you get some rando. That extra "skin in the game" means they will go to more effort and prioritize your health over medical expenses that must be paid for by insurance companies.
@blocktrades, I agree with your general arguments about what skin in the game means, but your premise seems to be that @lucylin is wrong and I think you have missed his point. I think that is your premise, because you didn't even read his entire post. You have made your decision without even reading his post and I think you have been swayed by others. I could be wrong here and if so please feel free to correct me.
If you want to actually understand what he is saying, this sentence sums up his post:
His point and yours are two different points that don't argue with each other. I agree with both of your arguments.
I agree with you that "skin in the game" will often lead you to make decisions that are more favorable to the game that you are playing. But, that does not disagree with @lucylin's point.
Skin in the game does not necessarily give you higher insights about the game, but it does often incentivize you to make decisions that are favorable to the game.
If you are going to downvote a post because you consider it to be "overrewarded nonsense", then you should at least have read the post and made a valid argument against it. You have not done that. You have made a basic statement that gives your opinion on the meaning of "skin in the game" and that does not do anything to refute his premise or his argument.
In DPOS skin in the game is stake.
There is no if, but or coconut.
Because of the large stakeholders, smaller stakeholders get a chance to cash out.
In DPOS, governance is stake weighted. If lucylin or you have stake you will have the ability to govern. If you don’t you have two choices:
Complaining about the fundamentals of DPOS will only lower your reputation. Although that number next to your name doesn’t mean much. But if you comment nonsense like this, it will be negative soon. How do you feel if a project owner have negative rep? By the way, you are not the first project to have that. Let’s not go there though. If you don’t like or enjoy hive blockchain, there are alternatives available. Please try them. Many thanks.
PS. I read lucylin’s post in it’s entirety. I agree with Blocktrades that it is nonsense and over rewarded, not in hive anymore but definitely in POB. As a project owner you have the responsibility to manage this kind of over rewarded crap. Because if you don’t, we will have to do it for you.
You've explained nothing that I don't already understand.
I don't think complaining about the fundamentals of DPOS deserves lowering reputation.
Your threats to lower my rep will not keep me from posting what I see as the truth. I will continue to build here, thanks.
I do help to manage over rewarded crap, but this does not fit the bill. You have no power to manage anything on POB. If you think you can, go ahead and give it a try. I have laid out a logical response to @blocktrades. Neither of you have refuted my argument. Based on what I've read from you, I don't expect you to give a logical response, but I do expect one from @blocktrades.
Good luck :)
Oh by the way....@proofofbrainio... since you like to tag :)
How about I buy your token and support the market and help with your project? Would you say yes? Would you sell me some token? I love to support your project.
I thought the key thing about DPOS is stake? Why don't you sell me 10K POB? Will do it off the market. Are you game?
I really want to help your project, as I think its a novel concept. See I am putting my money where my mouth is, which folks like lucylin won't do. They are here to just extract the reward and sell the token.
What do you say @proofofbrainio .... see another tag :)
Thank you @azircon! Good luck to you as well :)
I have not sold any POB and I don't have any plans to start. You'll have to buy it on the market or find someone else to sell to you. @onealpha seems to be a fan of yours and he has a lot of POB. Maybe he can sell you some.
Glad to hear that you want to help :)
You see @proofofbrainio there are ways to governance :) I didn't know this exactly, (I did have a hunch, but didn't spend any time on it), but now I do. Thank you for your help.
Hope to fight spam together side-by-side with you @proofofbrainio :)
PS... later in life, if you change your mind, the offer stands! Always here to help.
No one asked me to look at this post or express any opinion on it. I was randomly reading the hot or trending page (I forget which now) and I started reading the post due to its title.
I read enough of the article to conclude it was overrewarded nonsense. Of course, that doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with everything said in it. But when it begins with poor reasoning and a lot of hyperbolic content, I think it's quite fair to downvote it, regardless if there was some later truth contained in it that I never got to because of a poor beginning.
Also, as a practical matter, it's been my experience that posts that begin illogically don't tend to get better later. But since you asked me in a reasonable manner, I have taken the time to read the whole post now. And having done, I can't say I've changed my opinion about the post.
From what I can tell, the OP is trying to knock down a strawman argument. I can't be 100% sure who the OP talking about, of course, because he doesn't name any names. But the proponents of "skin in the game" that I know of, most prominently theycallmedan, have never made the argument that the OP is arguing against. They have made the argument that you cite and that I referred to in my initial response to the OP (having skin-in-the game encourages decision making that is beneficial to the system involved).
Nor have I heard anyone else here make the "pro"-skin-in-the-game argument that the OP is railing against. It should indeed be obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence that having wealth doesn't make you smarter than other people. As an obvious extreme case, babies born into wealth would need to be smarter than adults for this to hold true.
But I haven't seen anyone making this rich=smart argument here. Yet the OP goes on like he's uncovered some major discovery by citing what IMO should be an obvious truth to anyone who has had the chance to meet rich and poor people, and how he claims he has exposed some deep underlying rot in Hive, based on it.
Now, a much more interesting article would be an analysis of why the world is full of rich people of average abilities and what the impacts of that are. I've thought about this issue for a long time and I'll probably share some of my ideas about it, once I get some time.
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read his post and reply to me. Thank you for that. Like I've said before, I don't like @lucylin's writing style or that he doesn't name names, but I can't deny his very obvious main point and I believe he is talking about someone who actually made the argument that he is arguing against.
I think it is appalling that you have affirmed your decision to downvote even after understanding that your argument (and the reason you gave for downvoting) against his post did not even argue with his main point, but I'm guessing we will just have to agree to disagree here.
You have the power here and the ability to impose your will. I think a huge responsibility comes along with that and that you are abusing that power by affirming your downvote even after it has been shown that your argument against the post was not really an argument against it at all. Also his examples do actually work to prove his very obvious point.
I agree and I also think your explanation of skin in the game, which was also the argument that you made when downvoting the post, should be obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence. It did not disagree with @lucylin's main point and I submit that for that reason the downvote is unwarranted. I'm also curious to know if you are aware that he has been the target of a downvote campaign by @azircon. That could explain (not justify) him being hyperbolic.
Yes, he is aware.
How do you know? Have you had conversations with him about it?
Yes, as a matter of fact I did. Any further question that I can help you with?
Well, that would mean that @blocktrades did not decide to click on @lucylin's post totally randomly like he claimed was the case. If you and him have discussed your downvote campaign (which he has clearly approved of), there is no possibility for @blocktrades to be completely unaffected by your views.
No, that is all for now.
Actually, I do have another question.
It's very interesting that you have a direct line of communication with him.
My question: How did you obtain the bulk your HIVE stake? Did you buy it off of the open market?
Can you find the instance of it? Given his argument style, short of contrary evidence, my best guess is still that it was indeed a strawman argument. It's a very popular tactic used by people who prefer to manipulate rather than rationally debate an issue: they like to mix up a lot of nonsense with some obvious truths to confuse the easily swayed. I think the method was ultimately turned into a science by cold callers who start with obvious questions that get you saying "yes" to, in order to create a trend of agreement.
I wasn't aware of it, because I'm much more involved on the technical side of Hive than the social side. But I agree it doesn't justify lucylin's response. And that's what I'm voting on.
The downvote system on Hive is deeply flawed, IMO. I even argued against it in one of my early posts on the subject, because it does have negative effects. But I think it also has some positive effects, despite it being a weak system.
I absolutely do believe we need a signaling system for calling out bad behavior, rating bad information, etc. But a downvote on Hive doesn't do this nearly well enough, because it's too one dimensional, and it assumes that the reaching of one consensus is the optimal state. We need something much more nuanced, and that's what I'm planning to create eventually.
I have been planning to publish a post about this, but my personal take is that a downvote should 'cost' the same voting power as an upvote. If I choose to negate someone else's upvote with a 100% downvote (or replace many minnows' upvotes if I have a lot of HP), it should also replace one of my own 100% upvotes.
You obviously missed the entire Haejin drama where that proved to be at the detriment of those who wish to counter abusive behavior.
I've done that with others before "free downvotes" were a thing and let me tell you this:
It's incredibly stupid to expect someone else to sacrifice curation so "bad actors" won't get anything while everyone else who doesn't care gets their returns.
Even with the compensation programs set up by @steemflagrewards, it was still doing it at delegators' expenses with little to no upsides.
There's a free-rider problem, for sure. But the current DV system is itself ripe for abuse. And it will encourage ideologic DV wars once the ecosystem begins genuinely expanding.
Also, it punishes legitimate curators when the "bad actor" is the author and vice versa.
I get it that 'free DVs' had their place in the past. I am not convinced, at all, that they represent the best solution moving forward. It represents a small-minded solution (imho).
That's good to know, if you're wondering what it might be good to have terms and conditions or something.
Could you rephrase your idea above: I wasn't sure what you were referring to above, especially as to how terms and conditions could apply to it. In other words, my comment had several points and I'm not sure which one you're referencing.
That you're working on a new project to address the abuse.
@lucylin would you please confirm this by showing the instance where the argument was made?
Well, that is weird as @azircon just told me that you and him had discussed it. Both of you can't be telling the truth here.
Are you saying that's why you downvoted it and why you are affirming your actions. Because he was hyperbolic? Your original reason that you gave for downvoting has changed then?
That may be true, but I haven't seen a better system proposed and I don't believe the problem here is only a flaw in the system. As I have pointed out there are flaws in your logic, and I believe that you are abusing your power. I'm not sure why you are doing those things, but my arguments have shown that you have.
That could be cool as long it is does not depend on a central power.
Do you realize in the white paper, there is no comment on giving 'explanation' regarding why a DV is given? Yet, here we are giving you explanation for 2-3 hours plus on our actions out of sheer courtesy.
Do you give a reason on why you upvote Lucylin's every single post? Because I like to ask you that. Is 'his' every single post is of equal value to you?
Mind you, you are not required to answer me. But maybe you fail to realized, and any tribe token is quite centralized. You are the largest owner and creator of the token. We are just mere investors. But you are in our courtroom, not the other way round :) If you satisfy us, we will buy your token and price will go up, if you don't satisfy us, we can sell your token and price will go down. This is very simple. This is a question from your large shareholder, not from me. He was asking you, why do you upvote every post by these two individuals. Again, you don't have to answer this question :)
But your community is watching you :)
You see, I don't have that problem. I didn't make a token and sold it on the market. I paid money to buy your token :) You see? @proofofbrainio :)
I upvote what I consider to have value. I have also followed @calumam's trail based on the grading system he uses. To give a more detailed answer, it would need to be post specific.
I agree with all your points in this particular comment that I am directly replying to. Of course that could change if you continue to edit it.
I consider the fact that the community is watching as a good thing, not a problem.
I sincerely don't mean to be rude, but I have some things to take care of and won't be back online for while. As usual, I will get back to as many replies as I can when I get back online.
I responded elsewhere in more depth on this issue and azircon has confirmed upon review of the conversation that my recollection was the more accurate one in this instance. But it's very easy to read intentional deception into cases where people simply have slightly different recollections of events. Our mental context influences our perception of what information was conveyed and we can easily think we've shared information that hasn't been shared.
I downvoted it because I thought his post wasn't a good post. I don't have the time to go into depth on every reason I downvote something. I added a comment to explain one clear and simple reason, which I thought was more than generous in this case.
This is probably going to be one of those "agree to disagree" issues. I don't think you've shown any flaws in my logic, nor do I believe I'm abusing my power in this instance.
Yes, in fact, that's a fundamental aspect of it. There's some very preliminary discussions about the ideas behind it here:
https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/a-peer-to-peer-network-for-sharing-and-rating-information
https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/modeling-information-in-an-information-rating-system
I'm just interested in your last paragraph and would like to read it, please let me know when you publish it.
Thanks for the support @proofofbrainio - But at think we all know at this point, that is has zero to do with the post...
(He called me 'a scam artist' in a reply a few hours ago....MMMmmmm...lol)
I saw that too and had to make a reply to that one as well. That's a serious allegation that I don't take lightly. It needs to be backed up or recanted.
My bad. Not scam. Spam.
Lucylin repeats the same thing over and over again. That is considered spam.
How do you scam on blockchain? lol...(not including dodgy links and things).
It seems far more morally dubious to take away other peoples voting power. (their upvote + their inflation % of their stake ...I must be dumb or something...)
On the upside, it makes for great reading material.....