Ah this topic has made its round again eh? It’s amusing because it’s often people with hundreds of thousands or more of hive trying to push for that. I think it’s a load of shit myself and if they want to try it, feel free to spin up a side chain and see how much of a ghost town it will be. Get the hype train going - how amazing a new chain is going to be without a reward pool!!! No downvotes!!!!
How did Blurt turn out? Hmm.
Discussing topics is important and good because we can weed out the foolish ideas from the valid ones. You just don’t inherently fuck up a main network with these silly ideas. Have at it somewhere else and see how it goes. If it works people will come to it.
If these people were serious about it they would get their own network rolling.
Blurt isn't able to implement nominal mechanisms to attract investors, but that's not because of the lack of downvotes. People misunderstand downvotes as the opposite of upvotes, and they're not. The opposite of an upvote is no vote.
Upvoting Toyota is buying one. Not upvoting, not buying one, is the opposite of buying one. A downvote is comparable to taxing Toyota and decreasing their profit off their product. Downvotes, or some similar mechanism, are necessary to eliminate spam, scams, and plagiarism, but should not be applicable to valuable discourse and societal interactions otherwise. Wages aren't income and income tax shouldn't apply to wages. In fact you can find definitions of income to that effect, but, just as Hive demonstrates, those that benefit from the tax burden creation IRL too.
That is a burden Hive will need to shrug off before it can ride the power of social media into the orbit it should be in.
I appreciate your perspective to bring a bit of temperament and humility to an otherwise sometime belligerent rant. We have a good bit to learn and develop here for sure.
This is a false equivalence, as it is a shared pool of resources. Upvotes are not coming from an individual's pocket, they are coming from a shared wallet.
That's immaterial to the impact on the creator. Spending their upvotes on a creator is comparable to buying a Toyota, and not upvoting is comparable to not buying a Toyota. Downvoting a creator is decreasing the income they get from their product, like taxing Toyota reduces their profit from selling their product.
Upvotes and no upvotes are the opposite effect on a creator. One provides rewards for creating content, and one does not. Downvotes decrease the rewards, just as taxes decrease profits. It doesn't make any difference at all to the creator whether the funds come out of the rewards pool or are tips out of the voters pocket - except downvotes cannot come out of the voters pocket. Downvotes can only take from the creator/upvoters and send to the pool.
Another mechanism that shows that DVs aren't the opposite of upvotes, but are the equivalent of a tax on production.
Quite wrong. It doesn't take from either, because neither has it. An upvote is a draw on the future distribution, and hasn't been created yet, which is why it can be negotiated. It belongs to no one, as it doesn't exist.
Terms and conditions are that there is a seven day window to negotiate between users with stake. It isn't until the tokens are created and distributed into a private wallet do they become owned.
You're dodging and weaving away from the point with admirable agility, but DV's are like a tax, and not the opposite of upvotes. When DV's decrease the value of the content to the creator is, again, immaterial to the creator.
If I work for wages that are paid bimonthly, does it make a difference that my wages are only taxed when I receive my paycheck? No. It only matters that they decrease my paycheck when I receive it.
Not at all. Whether you are doing it intentionally or out of ignorance, you are displaying a fundamental lack of understanding in how the mechanism works.
So, I will reiterate.
Until payout, the content has zero financial value in terms of HIVE earning.
There is no salary on Hive. There is no contract. There is no guarantee of earning on content. Essentially, it is like a piece of work where viewers negotiate its worth for seven days. After seven days, the worth as defined by staked users on Hive gets paid out directly to the creator, and that value in HIVE becomes theirs, to do with as they please.
Your assumed understanding and portrayal of how this works is flawed.
You dance around the point without purpose. It doesn't matter there is no contract. DV's counteract upvotes. They reduce the value of the work of the creator. That is their point. That is how they eliminate spam, scams, and plagiarism. It is ludicrous to claim they do not, which you appear to be trying to do.
Censorship is any suppression of speech. That is it's longstanding definition, and it is laughable and blatantly deceptive to claim otherwise to anyone capable of using a dictionary. As you reveal no interest in forthright discussion, I will cease engagement with you on this matter, as I have no interest in duplicity, nor pretention to mockery you affect. My pay isn't mine until I cash my check, and anyone that has worked for wages for any amount of time will have experienced wages being withheld contrary to agreement. The rhetoric about emuneration is meaningless and without financial value.
It is the pay that has value, and DV's are comparable to a tax on production of creators on Hive, whether you are loathe to admit it or not, your attempts at duplicity and dancing around points of fact notwithstanding.
Enjoy your day.
As far as I can tell, the people pushing for removing the Hive reward pool have a very small stake overall.
AGREEEEEEEEEED. Too lazy to write it all myself, so thanks for doing it for us all.
This has grown into quite a discussion LOL but I like reading the comments on it!