I've written in the past about the great Steem dream. You see, Steem had this lofty and noble idea that somehow we'd be able to tap into crowd wisdom, and in this way, the various posts would accurately rise and fall in value based on their merit as determined by the consensus of the many. I've shown time and time again that this idea was fundamentally flawed, and therefore we have no choice but to adapt accordingly. Yet still, we have powerful forces on the blockchain who refuse to concede this fact.
One of my many (substandard and wacky) analogies for HIVE's inherited problem is as follows: Imagine that someone creates the most outstanding design for a beautiful automobile. Almost everything about it is perfect, save for one square tire, called a "smart tire." Perhaps the description for this 'smart tire' says that this enhancement mimics the shape of the road on all four sides, and thus it is more equipped to handle flat and road-shaped terrains more than a round-shaped tire that's curved on all sides.
And the one odd-tire means that this perfect automobile design is twenty-five percent more road-efficient than cars that don't have a single 'smart tire.' Now here's the cool part about the nonsense I just spewed above.
To some people, it'll sound legit. We have so many "special folks" in this world—and I promise you I could sell one of the first cars with a square-shaped 'smart tire.'
The only problem is when the customer drives it off the lot, they'll learn they got deceived by a fast-talking huckster, and then they'll demand their money back.
If I run a respectable car sales establishment, I'm going to have to rethink my policy about 'smart tires.' And this is especially true if they don't live up to their hype. Imagine if I don't do that? Suppose every week I talk some poor dumb sap out of 30-60k, and as they drive the car off the lot, the automobile destroys itself on the way out because of the so-called 'smart tire.' And this puts me in quite a pickle; Word will get around that I'm a terrible car dealer who sells lying lemons that you cannot even squeeze for lemonade purposes. Either that or people will be so hopping mad that they'll vandalize my establishment in a desperate attempt to pay me back for conning them out of their life savings.
Anyways, we know what dPoS is. dPoS is the law of power on the blockchain that says you can do whatever you can do just so long as you can get away with it. And you can get away with whatever you can get away with so long as there are not persons with more power to stop you. So what does this mean in real talk? It means that those with the most stake can act like despots and dictators on the blockchain while blaming their poor behavior on dPoS or the code, "which is the law." The thing about that whole theory is the entire notion that code is law works in reality too.
IRL, with the 'Law of the Jungle,' if you have a gun, you can shoot someone in the head with it, and they will die. The main point here is that there's nothing necessarily moral or ethical about this kind of behavior; Unless, of course, you acted in self-defense. It is here where the STEEM/HIVE ecosystem has found itself stuck. It's been this way ever since they abolished the guidelines for flagging and then introduced downvotes in some abstract and twisted hope that they could somehow force people to tap into crowd wisdom despite the failure to meet the parameters required to make it work.
☑ Rewards incentivize content creation and curation.
☐ A voting system that leverages the wisdom of the crowd.
Now all of the above are the dark clouds of the STEEM/HIVE ecosystem. The cold hard truth of the matter is that PoB, as outlined in the blue paper—can't happen because it clashes with dPoS. That said, all is not lost. I say this because an intelligent person who I do not know has created the POB community. And these good folks appear to be paving a path to set forth some standards for the use of their second-layer token. In particular, as of late, the focus seems to be on downvotes, and there appears to be some drama and contention surrounding the idea of muting the stake of malicious downvoters.
Ask yourself this question: What do we do in society with mass shooters? Mass shooters get neutralized, and usually, this involves getting shot dead (aka silenced permanently). But we're talking about some internet nonsense, and it's hardly that serious, but malicious downvoters are just as cancerous to HIVE as mass shooters are to society. So if you ask me, the notion of censoring the up and downvote power of POB's second layer tokens isn't such a bad idea. Any affected individuals can sell their stake back to the marketplace if they're not down with communities that condemn antisocial voting behavior.
There are many naysayers to this effort who are making false equivalences and attempting to suggest that POB will fail if it does not allow downvotes because it will become like Blurt. This idea is complete nonsense, and I've debunked it using sound reasoning here. At this pace, if downvote standards get implemented on a second layer token, I think that over time we can teach the outer-HIVE how to get good. And the simple rule of thumb here is to find a way to deal with sociopaths as they run amok.
Again some of these proposals don't aim to eliminate downvotes, rather merely to implement standards that discourage people from using the force of malicious downvotes instead of harnessing a bit of brainpower and typing words to express their disagreements. Anyways, I'd love to hear your take on the matter. Are communities and second layer tokens the appropriate place for such an experiment? And if a successful model gets implemented, should the outer-HIVE take note? What say you on the matter?
Good to see that this issue is still being thought about and discussed. It was quite clear from the beginning that PoS systems are vulnerable to tyrants simply because more money can buy more influence. A very very old mechanism that blockchain technology has not yet solved. The reasoning is that wanting to centralize Hive now to some few powerful players people would have to sell their stake voluntarily at higher and higher prices, but it seems there are enough bad actors who have never gotten rid of their huge stake that they still in effect hold control over much that's going on here.
I feel the only way to overcome this would be swarm intelligence and courage on part of the individual. Same as in society at large really - risking our own well-being on the individual level to overcome tyranny on the vaster scale at large.
I really have to read up on the pob discourse, cheers for the reminder
So very well stated, @paradigmprospect!
"I feel the only way to overcome this would be swarm intelligence and courage on part of the individual. Same as in society at large really - risking our own well-being on the individual level to overcome tyranny on the vaster scale at large."Speaking of that, that last bit. You got me thinking of Lucylin's recent post, and it appears that they will be doing a pretty thorough critique of the problems that dPoS brings in two different styles. One sarcastic and ranty, and one more serious in tone. I must say, I'm looking forward to seeing what they publish on the matter.
really great points you raised!
I agree the original idea set out by steem has been proven to be much more difficult to achieve than perhaps originally thought. The "solution" to mute users that don't abide by the rules could work, but then we get into a really dicey subject as we are talking about censorship that is so rampant in social media nowadays. The rules have to be clear (which the current downvote proposal is and why I voted for it), they should be seen on the front page of that community and they shouldn't be set into stone. So far I think all of the reasons given sound reasonable enough; but the obvious challenge is be very open about this to prevent users getting mutted for the wrong reasons. How does this work actually in practice? Who gets to mute X user?
Hey there, @tobetada! It's very cool to see that you participated in the POB community vote! For a proposal to get ratified, it has to garner at least fifty percent of the staked POB according to the current governance protocol. Such a protocol may need reconsideration.
For example, everyone in a nation-State has a stake in the future of their country. However, for whatever reasons, there is hardly ever a stunning turnout rate. The expectation of getting fifty percent of the stakeholders to vote might be damn near impossible. And I think this is why voting mechanics in some countries go with the higher number to one degree or another.
A couple of other points on your comment is that I believe muting stake prevents a rogue stakeholder from voting up or down posts with their POB tokens. I do not think that it cancels, hides, or prevents them from posting or earning POB's, but I'm not one hundred percent certain. In that sense, I don't think the idea is supposed to censor someone's freedom of speech.
You make a fine point about who gets to decide, and I'd like to think that job should be a pretty laid-back one. I think most people on HIVE don't engage in malicious downvoting. I also think it's safe to say that it's in the community leader's best interest to review any such stake-mutings on a case-by-case basis. Either that or install someone trusted.
Thanks for stopping by and for sharing your thoughts on the matter, @tobetada! I hope to see it work out. I'd like to see many more communities that experiment with different styles of governance. Perhaps one day, the right one will get discovered, and HIVE can emulate its success!
I would say the key thing here is "Free Will" we have to let the free will reign. But only with authentic "BRAIN" (brain juices) PoB (Proof of Brain) not with anything else materially shining like big/huge investments, amount of tokens staked or stuff like that to truly have a say.
¿You don't like the atmosphere or the work philosophy in the place? Well, you are free to sell your tokens, recover your investment and leave whenever you want!
¿That do you think there is a lot of inequality in the platform and some earn much more than they should? Well, you are free to sell your tokens, recover your investment and leave whenever you want!
And in fact, with examples like these above so I could go on and on and on. Actually, nothing different from what has already been said thousand times before throughout the dPoS career with the mantra: "The Code Is Law" with the only distinction that in this case it is not money or its amount that governs the behavior of such code & law. ¿Sound this clear enough?
Why the hell would one not be able and want to experiment with a new philosophy of work and exercise of free will that does not have to do precisely with money as "Code is Law" to ensure governability and feasibility of success in an essay?
Hasn't dPoS and its much vaunted especial flavor of "Code Is Law" already had enough time to reinvent, readapt and adjust itself to new, more organic and elementary realities and economy of interaction with anything other than money or the amount of money that someone owns or hodl?
I believe so!! };)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter, @por500bolos!
Hahahaha, uhm... like did I catch you already tired? Or your dense reply was just because of the extravagant and scruffy tone of my comment? LoL };)
Tu "tono extravagante y desaliñado" fue fantástico. Sin embargo, por la razón que sea, no pude saber si estabas de acuerdo, en desacuerdo, o si estabas derramando tu corazón sobre dPoS o PoB de una manera que no se tradujo bien. Baste decir que me pareció un comentario apasionado, expresado con tanta convicción y personalidad, que me sentí inclinado a reconocer tus palabras aunque no pudiera comprender del todo el mensaje que pretendías transmitir.
Hahaha thank you! :)
Since I'm not 100% sure you speak and understand Spanish, then let me just write this reply to you in my usual frightening Spanglish.
Just to clarify that you are not the only one who does not fully understand me or if it is a simple case that I'm not being too crystal clear in what I use to manifest, express and write pouring out so much heart with passion, coviction and personality. So, don't worry! There is no hassle! I'm used to it by now.
It's just that I'm so used to my intimate brainy soliloquies exclusively with myself to try to make people think through them, but by themselves and not by what I say. That in the end it seems that I always manage to get people to recognize my words, but that no one can fully decipher what I really wanted to convey. That it was nothing more than a mission to make them think and me quietly collect my prize which almost always is the sweet silence and lack of feedback.
Así que para resumir. Quizás este viejo comentario que realicé en otro post más o menos sobre el mismo tema hace poco más de una semana atrás, te aclare mejor cual es mi posición sobre dPoS, PoB, powerup tokens, stake y los downvotes en el contexto de tu artículo y lo que en él preguntas.
Cheers!! :)
¡Ja! ¡Eres muy inteligente! Quizá tenga que echar un ojo a tus comentarios para ver si algún día puedo morder tu estilo. Una vez tuve un buen amigo que dominaba el arte de no decir nada con un exceso de palabras. En comparación contigo, parecía que disfrutabas diciendo algo con arte de tal manera que esperabas que no se te entendiera directamente. Ahora imagina que utilizas esos dos estilos y que pasas de uno a otro, o incluso que operas en el embrague según la situación y las circunstancias lo consideren necesario. Bien hecho. Y gracias, ese comentario me ayuda a entender mucho mejor. Aunque me gusta la idea de las votaciones orgánicas, mucha gente ha delegado su poder de HIVE en los curation trails de las causas en las que resuenan. Me temo que si no tuviéramos curation trails, ese HIVE podría estar aún más muerto de lo que ya está.
Salud!! :)
P.D. Por cierto, ¡tu espanglish es muy perfecto!
Having been at the butt end of malicious downvoting from the get go I can thoroughly agree with you. I hide out in POB for that very reason.
I'm sorry to hear about that @active-truth. I do hope the POB community can help to set a new standard. Honestly, the percentage of people with antisocial personality disorder is small in comparison to the general population. That said, if a policy like the one proposed pisses off a handful of malicious downvoters, it means little to me. The sad part is—by the time the outer-HIVE catches up; They may have lost the first-mover advantage to a second layer token.
I would say more accurately that this Hive DPOS is "the law of power of multiple cartels, who mostly collude together to enrich themselves while putting on a good public face".
Ahh, well said, @truthforce! I think you have a deeper insight into HIVE's blockchain politics than I do, even though I am like one blockchain year older than you, which is about 70 in doge years. You crafty little whippersnapper! Where are you going!? Won't you help me reformat my phone? It doesn't change the channels anymore!
Call it CPOS. C for Cartel.
If the whales of Hive wanted decentralization they would power down and sell their Hive so more people could have access to it.
Well said, but I hardly think anyone would be zany enough
to sell at 31¢ per share. Tis why they should upvote more
and focus on drawing folks into the pretty blue light!
Made a post about this
I won't lie I don't know what a dPoS, second layer token or the outer-Hive all mean...but I do know that downvoting because you dislike the person it's lame. Downvoting because you read one sentence but not the whole post is lame. Downvoting because you're a douche is lame.
I'm on POB discord but tbh I've seen some malicious comments in there so I tend to stay away.
So my question is...what happens when the crowd isn't very wise? Should they be voting? Who decides? Is that person "the wisest in the land"?
But there are always those who don't care and maliciously downvote for ridiculous reasons instead of using their words and speaking to the poster.
Interesting post and now I will go ask @ryzeonline if he knows the words I don't know lol
Much love
❤️
Because I mostly agree with you, I'll state my own point against what you say:
You wrote: "those with the most stake can act like despots and dictators."
Who we're talking about is simple then: The people with the most stake.
That alone implies something important: People who have the most stake will also have the most financial interest in keeping Hive healthy. The power-down period is also meant to ensure that short-term gains don't blind them to the long-term.
This means that the people who have the most stake, in the most basic financial sense, are also the people with the most to lose. Thus, by the logic of a logical market, they will do their best to maintain the value of Hive in the short and long-term. The need the community and market to be healthy, for the sake of their investment.
Don't look at me too harshly here. That alone isn't enough, and we both know it.
I already said at the beginning that I still basically agree with you. The dark truth is that merely having high stakes doesn't make you a better investor, gambler, or community member.
The rest of your post holds water. Even so, it is good to question things.