An ecosystem as complicated as Hive/Leo needs to have users who are here for the long run, & reward their posts instead of posts form those who are here for the present rewards, who sell your ecosystem's inflation at the 1st chance they get
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Downvotes are good, I'd never get rid of them. They allow the community to decide where token allocation goes. Having downvotes is a way to protect your ecosystem's inflation and try to decide in a decentralized way where it should go.
Curation projects are good as long as there is not a monopoly, which apparently is what happens on Hive. I don't see that happening in Leo Finance. From what I've seen, Hive users are lazy & prefer to delegate their voting allocation cont
instead of actively distributing their share of inflation the way they want to. On the other hand, I noticed that most if not all of the Leo holders prefer to do their voting themselves. This is a better behavior if you want healthy growth.
Curation groups are good when you want to incentivize new users and keep your community encouraged and grow, but having a handful of groups controlling half the active Hive Power is not a healthy distribution, even if it's just delegated.
When it comes to Leo Finance, I also have to mention that having the oracle accounts actively voting is not healthy for the reward distribution, because as far as I know the votes are controlled by the team. But the pros trump the cons...
because the oracle accounts get curation rewards that are used for token buyback afaik, which helps the users with skin in the game. Oracle voting reduces the voting influence of users in the short term, but the long term benefit is greater
In general, I think the $leo tokenomics are more promising than the $hive tokenomics, but this doesn't mean that Hive doesn't have potential. In fact is has so much potential that I recently staked 10k Hive power. I believe in both projects