Would I be ok with moving content rewards to L2?
Until anyone can show me why content rewards on Hive are unsustainable but content rewards on L2 magically are sustainable I can't take the argument seriously. In fact many have suggested that we just replace upvote distribution with simple yield farming, which is the equivalent of simply upvoting oneself 10 times a day. That is objectively mathematically more centralized on a completely non-debatable level.
It's not a serious discussion.
I do not see it that way. They are definitely sustainable but I find them limiting and limited. Limiting kind of like training wheels that you never take off the bike and limited in the sense that they cant sustain a large creator ecosystem that would be competitive with anything mainstream. The reward pool is just too tiny, even if a 10x from here was the baseline during the next bear market.
L2 would by necessity have to be new user focused and inovative, something our top social media dapps right now that use base layer rewards are not in any way whatsoever.
That only comes from ads run on a layer two smart contract. and then expanding outside of it to subscription services etc. But you need that ad revenue first to get people moving. It's exactly how web2 operates and web3 isn't going to operate any differently.
"Unsustainable" is not really the right standard. Can an extra 6% or so inflation with little to show for it be "sustained"? Probably, it's not earth-shattering. But it's also not really helping anything and it's a lot of money.
See I keep hearing this line but no one can actually present the actual data to backup the argument.
If it's so obvious then it should be trivially easy to show how the reward pool centralizes the chain.
The data that I come across shows the opposite.
Removing the reward pool breaks a dozen different mechanics on a network that has relied on it existing since inception.
Here are the big ones:
I don't see anyone in favor of removing the reward pool addressing any of these issues. In fact the only time that I did (to fix #1 & #5) was to add simple yield farming in place of the upvote system... which would be equivalent to 100% upvoting ourselves with no possibility of downvote. It boggles the mind to think that anyone could deem that an upgrade. It's a mathematically provable downgrade.
I remain unconvinced and very skeptical.
The pool decentralizes the chain.
Removing it will centralize the chain.
The burden of proof is on those who want to gut the system.
I finally see the points in this neverending discussion that I can agree with.
I don't understand the connection with #1.
I don't support yield farming. That's just staking with extra spam. So I agree it is a downgrade.
I don't agree whatsoever with #2 and #3 being a downgrade. These are both hot garbage that add minimal to no or even negative value, plus again a lot of spam.
I agree #4 is a valid point, but the system is way overly complex and requires way too much constant babysitting from stakeholders and a turn off to would be investors (I'm going to have to vote 10 times per day?! WTF?!). DHF is a better model.
#5 is offset by reduced selling pressure day after day, year after year as people milk rewards and cash them out. Also, it is conceivably possible that a L2 reward scheme could use L1 stake weighting for voting, in which case the reasons to hold stake would remain essentially the same.
#6 is a mixed bag. Our reputation is not great (possibly optimistic), and sitting on a system that works poorly and clearly discourages potential new investors (they don't see the value in being inflated to generate selling pressure to pay for low-quality content and a stagnant model) without taking action is not a good look. Being willing to evolve a stagnant model that has failed to produce growth is a positive, not a negative.