Within moments of browsing Hive, you can find about 100 articles giving tips and tricks on how we can all be Hive millionaires if we follow the template: "MaKe QuAlItY pOsTs AnD eNgAgE wItH yOuR aUdIeNcE."
While I'm all for amassing a pile of magic monopoly money, this is flawed logic. Optimal strategies aren't optimal if everyone does them. When everyone follows the template, it leads us to some boring, homogenous, disenchanted love-fest where we await the next dopamine rush for receiving an upvote from a pseudonymous agent of our echo chamber. There are many individualistic definitions and routes to success.
Even if you disagree, let's face it, the template is vague. While engagement is quantifiable, I doubt you can get a definition we all agree on for "quality." It's not just a lot of words. It's also not very few words. It doesn't require a specific subject. The level of rigor doesn't matter. Or does it? Most would find solace in saying, "It's subjective." I hate those people. We could take some big ugly poll and extrapolate something from the intersubjectivity of the masses. But, honestly, it's not a productive conversation. We easily know quality when we see it, but it takes work to communicate what that word means on a macro level.
"Kryptik, why even bring this up?"
Well, I'm trying to answer a bigger question: "wEn MoOn?"
In my mind, most arguments for the platform's success are impinged on, "How do we get more eyes on this thing?" At the macro level, Hive is playing an attention game. This game doesn't care if you're Web2 or Web3. It doesn't care that Hive is arguably a better technology (even if it is incredibly unintuitive to most). All it cares about is that you have the general masses staring at your version of the garbage fire that is most of life. Two general strategies for accumulating these masses emerge: numbers or quality.
Again, there is that dirty word that we can't define or completely agree on. But even if we did, I usually prefer memes over publications laden with integrity. Quality doesn't equal attention. I'm sorry if I have to be the one to break the news to you; No matter how much you want it to exist, we do not live in a utopian meritocracy. People want to see the ever-increasing populations of the Kardashians and Baldwins. They want bitter partisan fights over politics. They want their memes (represent). Quality isn't a sustainable strategy because it only appeals to fractured groups of individuals that define it within their niche. While appealing to a niche is a plausible strategy at an individual level, it hardly leads to the paradigm shift that would bring Hive to a large enough critical mass to change how the general public approaches social media. To enter into the long arc of the Web3 story, we need to first beat Web2 at its game.
Numbers it is.
We can all get out there and post daily. The Infinite Monkey Theorem states: that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will eventually write Shakespeare. So we can get to the mythical quality thing with purely brute-force content creation. The problem: we need the resources to do this. The current macro social networking game is a triadic market comprised of content creators, consumers, and advertisers. While some technologically savvy entrepreneurs have utilized our ecosystem, the big boys can only be bothered by the complexities of having 17 sets of private keys and purchasing tokens once the value proposition makes it worth doing so. So we are left with a paradoxical problem: we can't get more people because we need more people. The insane number of mindless babble on social media is impossible for a small system like ours to keep up with. This problem gets exponentially more extensive with the increased prevalence of AI content creation. Now not only do we have to keep up with a much larger population of content creators but also language models that never sleep.
Good luck, little buddy.
Our only chance is brilliant SEO and onboarding, where the convergence of multiple streams of traffic lands on our faces. Unfortunately, while some may be heading toward this goal, many more are drifting into the disillusioned land of a focus on "quality," whatever that means. The grassroots approach can't keep up with the rate of attrition. In the early days, grifters dressed as influencers got a lot of attention from voters of the platform. They brought limited value and almost no exclusivity. Unfortunately, this left a bad taste in the mouths of many. Is it time we consider attracting beacons of influence from across the internet? While some would say no, it seems to be the strategy for some of the major Web2 players. Feasibility is a cost-benefit analysis away. Would you all consider opening up the Hive fund for something like this?
Let me know what you all think.
@thatkidsblack: This seems to have been influenced by our talk the other day.
@tarazkp: Go figure, I wrote something for once and it seems that you beat me to it today. (Despite different viewpoints.)
I made these same arguments on Steemit back before the hard fork. Quality is subjective, but it's subjective in a groupthink sense, as you mentioned.
I don't believe this for a minute:
While there are a lot of good things in this post, the Infinite Monkey Theorem has not been proven. Nor can it be. It's just something to say that sounds pithy, and it illustrates your point really. What people like en masse isn't quality. People aren't beating down the doors to read Shakespeare, Dickens, and the Bronte Sisters. But they'll waste half their day on Facebook looking at cat memes and the eating habits of strangers. Post that kind of content on Hive and see what happens.
Hive has its problems and the only people who don't know it are Hive maxis. Here are some of the top ones:
That said, there are also some good things about Hive. Where else can you go to write solid long-form content that people will actually read and you have a reasonable chance at earning something from it? While most people writing on Hive won't earn respectable income, the ability to take what you earn and sock it away to earn more over time is incredible. Earn from $1 to $5 per post, put half of that into an interest-bearing account earning 20 percent APR and stake the other half. Keep doing that and see where you're at in a year, or two years. Keep going at it through the next bull run and see where it's at.
For comparison's sake, do the same thing on Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat and see what you have after the same period of time.
I think spending a lot of time talking about how to get more people on Hive is a waste. When they get here, what will happen to the quality of the content? Will the "quality" squad like it? Or will they downvote it because it doesn't meet their standards? Many people have already left over these issues. Frankly, I'd rather have a smaller group of loyalists to read who church out great content on the regular than a million users posting mediocre content, generating AI content that looks like Facebook stuff, and plagiarizing what they found at Medium.
I followed you because I like your profile. Keep up the good work.
I really appreciate the long thoughtful commentary after a post as well. One of the best parts of the platform is the exchange between people. Unlike most decentralized social platforms, I don't have to pay a $10 gas fee to have this exchange. There's plenty wrong and right about Hive.
This was ultimately part of a discussion from the other day that I had with a friend of mine on the platform.
In any case, I'm glad to see that it's only the maxis that aren't tired of the endless Hive posts. I enjoy it and think it's worth advocating for, but man, there's more to life. Followed you back. Thank you.
Yeah, I don't think there's any value to an echo chamber. Hive is the best thing we've got for long-term content earnings, IMO. I've tried several of the other platforms and nothing else comes close to achieving all the benefits of blockchain-based social media. Still, it can be improved.
I'm looking forward to reading more of your content.
The problem is, once people are producing what is available everywhere else for free, there is no value to have it here. The only way the numbers game works on Hive, is if it has a couple hundred million users and adverts, where the ad revenue is used to buy back hive that is being sold on the market etc. It is possible, but in order for the numbers game on content to work, onboarding will have to be made for more than earning Hive from the inflation pool, because the vast majority will earn absolutely nothing, because there isn't that much Hive.
I see it more like a niche sport - there can be a lot of money in it, even if it only appeals to a small number. It doesn't have to be soccer, it can be sailing.
So much this. I'm going to soon, one day, write a heartfelt post about the transformative power of a karaoke experience I had with family (not a joke, and I swear, I'm not on drugs) - and it will be a deeply emotional personal account, with photographs and confessions the like you'd not expect from a "man" in contemporary society.
It'll be my masterpiece.
Wouldn't it be marvelous if people actually cared enough to put their heart into making their masterpiece?
I'll try. I have my ups and downs when it comes to the stuff that I output, but I like to think that I'm consistent in terms of the drive to want to say what I want to say.
Whether its worth saying, whether it is worth reading, it is for the void to decide.
I completely agree with the statement: "what is available everywhere else for free, there is no value to have it here".
I think there is a need for exclusivity, but obviously it isn't the only thing that matters.
Strangely, I think that attacking a niche is fine, but I don't know if we can create enough clamor because of this already being a niche kind of place (if that makes sense). We're narrowing down, on an already narrow pool of creators. To magnify a piece of content in that environment, it would have to be some really attention grabbing stuff.
Mind you, this conversation doesn't do much for "attention-grabbing" as it is only one that would be discussed by our community. (I guess I'm part of the problem.)
It is an interesting problem, because it shows how full of shit most crypto people are. If they really wanted to support a decentralized future, they wouldn't be shilling their tokens on Twitter, they would be pulling people into places like Hive to shill their tokens. Large and diverse communities of crypto people, banked up on crypto, talking and supporting crypto, showing how a decentralized, multi-token community with a thousand chains interacting together would create a stable economy, protected by the numbers.
But no, they support the centralized platforms, because that is where the people are.
HWOOO man’s posting fire! Welcome back and too right. It’s like I’ve been writing about- that artist, Rhett Mankind? He’s been posting “quality” for years in the web3 space. It’s when he finally decided to use GPT to teach himself how to build a token that attention swarmed him like a hornets’ nest.
I’m getting lol’s from holovision on my posts, maybe cuz I type meme, maybe cuz they read it and doubt the legitimacy of a memecoin, but reading a book and applying to this specific case, there’s real reasons why his lil shtick is picking up steam.
To be real with you, I’m in the Discord essentially community managing, encouraging people to ‘raid’ posts and tell their friends cuz well, it’s working. It’s working like in the book and if this is my big blowout moment from the rat race, folding clothes, you had better believe I’m not just taking notes, I’m living them.
Man, I appreciate your writing because of the honesty and the realness that you provide. (I think it's a little over-the-top optimistic, but that's fine. I got to thinking about this because of your writing the last fews days. I've been so focused on "making cool shit" that whoopsie, I forgot about the importance of communities. A lot of you all here are "my people" (including yourself). This isn't a revelation, only something I've been neglecting in my solitary confinement. It's a back-to-my-roots kinda moment.
I'm going to focus on growing and going. I think in a few weeks I got something to propose to you that you may be interested in. One of those win-win situations we all need.
Alright then. I like the sound of that.
From now on, everytime I find an excellent, timeless post, I'm going to find a place to store the link. Everytime I find 10, I'll post a collection.
I'm sick of the diatribe crap that is published on HIVE. I've been sick of it for years. I was sick of it when it was Steem.
We don't need 400 people to each post "oh look, new reward card in splinterlands". Have 1 post, then 400 comments. Foster that discussion and keep it in one place, or else you bisect your audience.
I'm vary of "revenge" downvotes, otherwise, I'd be downvoting every single post about HIVE that is published by an author who constantly writes about the same stuff (or does templated posts that attract larger rewards than genuine "content") as a way of "balancing" the reward pool.
I guess I just need to not care, and hope that my content is "good enough" to organically "rise to the top" without playing politics.
I guess people can't be as objective as they think they are in the ivory towers of their minds.
To me this is part of the hard problem. We're all decentralized individuals just swimming through this complicated Web3 shit together, but there aren't many clear things that unite us other than Hive and crypto. So this is basically all we see man. You cast the widest net that way and even though I despise it, occasionally I'm feeling empathetic/nostalgic enough to vote for the stuff.
I've freed up some time so maybe I'll get around to posting more. The place is awesome, for a very small set of people.
It's awesome when you get to connect with human beings who share common interests, and HIVE is the fabric that binds you close.
So many people on HIVE, I'd welcome them into my home with open arms, cook them a meal; then tell them to get out after they were full and jolly, and then come back another time, or perhaps go to their house and experience the same.
Yet, also, alarmingly, so many people on HIVE, I'd not want anywhere near my house :D
I agree. Well, maybe I have a spot for them under the house.
Dark in more ways than one. Perfection. You and I are gonna get along
It is quite refreshing seeing people say things plainly and unapologetically without fear or favour. This sort of truth bomb is needed in a space where most people are so obessed with their narrative and delusion.
For me virality is more important than quality. Why? Well quality is subjective and open to debate. On the other hand virality is objective and based on numbers, and numbers don't lie (most times). Unfortunately hive is not structured to gauge and reward virality--the one thing that can positively impact the network effect of the chain. Even worse, more care is given to investors over the sanity/healthy of the blockchain.
I might not have the answer to hive's problem but I think we need to make a shift towards being a result orientated blockchain which is not basic on our subjective narrative of quality and development.
Influencer can bring more eyes to the chain but I think Hive would do better with restructuring it social system by making it more enjoyable and engaging--micro blogging or vlogging comes to mind. This allows for quick rapport which can help increase on screen time and improve retention.
I can agree with that sentiment.
Here's a really hard question for you: What is the equation for virality?
Like many things in complex systems it's so hard to come up with probable causation from an observational standpoint.
You've got the gears churning a bit so I had to give you a follow.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I think a big part of the question of "Wen Moon?" is when will the price of Hive rise? The price of Hive rises when more Hive is bought than sold... but the thing is, who really needs to buy Hive?
Once an account has enough Hive to get the resources they need to post what they want to post, they don't really actually need any more Hive, and so they can sell everything they earn from there.
dApps built on Hive need resource credits/Hive for their users but it's not like there are a crazy amount of dApps here, and they're hard to make and manage.
So even if we attract lots more people to Hive, I don't think it's affect the price too much, because the daily reward pool will just be stretched thinner. I don't think the quality of posts really matter than much if Google isn't pointing everyone to Hive - so I'm not really sure what the path towards Hive mooning actually is.
It's a tough one for sure. Virality definitely is the "luck" factor of any successful web technology. It's such a difficult thing to quantify though. I think that as @thatkidsblack mentioned, Malcolm Gladwell made an attempt at this, but I haven't read it yet.
I think you're underestimating the power of human greed, but I could be wrong. There are plenty of wealthy people in the world that continue to seek wealth despite being set for life.
In any case, thanks for the thorough reply.
That's actually my point... when people have enough Hive resources to post regularly, then they can sell everything they earn from there, converting it to their local currency and buying things in the real world. I think greed from selling off Hive tokens is almost always going to outweigh the greed of accumulating Hive power for votes, etc.
I think this means there will always be significant daily selling pressure of Hive... and I'm not sure if there is ever going to be a reason for buying pressure to outweigh it.
I get that. I was saying that maybe they'll just keep accumulating. There's always that keeping up with the "Jones'" attitude. However, I do agree that this diminishes greatly when there isn't a sufficient value proposition. But, maybe not, look at meme coins. Usually the consensus I get from the average person pertaining to meme coins is the huge supply and "what if they all reach a dollar" attitude.
Who knows though?
I think to illustrate your point I'd be interested in what percentage of their stake that a large stakeholder normally sells vs. a smaller positioned account.
I'm sitting here trying to think of ways to build some utility on Hive. (Hopefully that's enough to increase the value proposition.)
I think the way to build utility on Hive is really just to create more dApps that use the Hive blockchain that allows people to post on-chain. You could take a percentage of their rewards, and you'd also need resource credits to allow them to post.
I definitely agree that memecoins have an appeal with the crypto public because of greed. People want to get in early and then sell at whatever the "top" is... without really thinking about who might end up holding a worthless bag at the end. They are purely get-rich-quick schemes that people knowingly go into, hoping the get out fast enough to "win".
Like $BEN right now... Bitboy and the maker will do well, so so so many people are going to lose money.
I'm not sure the memecoin mentality really reaches Hive though... if you look up the Makeup or Travel communities on Hive, I think most of the posters there are cashing out their Hive continuously. I'm just not sure many people are competing in who holds the most HP. Hive is just a way for most users to earn from posting.
I think this graph shows that more Hive is powered down than powered up:
source
Congratulations @kryptik! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 3500 comments.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!