This is a great start. I’m trying to be constructive here. I’d just like to clarify, the highly limiting, historical use of the word platform for hive. It really is a travesty since it is certainly not a platform and has confused the pants off of almost everyone in the industry to the tremendous detriment of hive itself.
Steemit.com and steem were also inaccurately both referred to as platforms.
Steemit.com was a platform. Steem was a blockchain protocol upon which other permission less platforms could be built
I think, even to this day this is why people still call hive a platform. It’s really bad for hive and as a community we must make sure that hive is NOT referred to as a platform, especially in such potentially viral wider industry reviews.
If you are going to categorise things in this way you need a separate set of rules for social media blockchain protocols and a separate set of criteria for web3 platforms. (Or at least the web2.5 ones trying to call themselves web3)
One of the criteria for a platform maybe wether or not it uses a censorship resistant, decentralised protocol for its back end. Platforms such as hive blog, peakd, ecency, Leo finance (the platform), Veews, actifit, 3speak and others on hive meet this criteria. Others that do not use hive do not meet this criteria and therefore probably shouldn’t even be called fully web3.
This review should first start by categorising and ranking the existing social media blockchain protocols (or similar nomenclature) and then include that review into the scores of a separate review specifically for so called social media, web2.5-web3 platforms.
The protocols are often distinguished as decentralised or not based on the extent to which they can be regulated and shut down. The presence of VC backed Pre mines, ICO’s, CEO’s and companies behind social media blockchain protocols generally are key indicators and criteria as to wether or not they are decentralised. Ability for non tech people to earn the token via a fair playing feild distribution mechanism such as POB should also be a key criteria. I see you have somewhat addressed this in section 7. But this is simply not applicable to platforms, only to social media blockchain protocols.
Ability for non tech people to earn the token via a fair playing feild distribution mechanism such as POB should also be a key criteria.
That was added under wealth distribution.
But this is simply not applicable to platforms, only to social media blockchain protocols.
Depends how the platform uses the blockchain tech, to what extent, for what exactly.
You cant split them in Web2.5 and web3. If you wanted to do that you would not only have to develop a methodology to determine what web2, web2.5, web3 is, but you would then have to draw a line where you can objectively say something is web3 or not.
Since web2.5 exists in your view, that shows that you cant draw that line, thats why the 0.5 is there.
Those are vague terms, that dont really mean anything, or rather mean many different things to many different people, but what you can do is develop a framework to judge them on the same basis.
Decentralization categories can be objectively set and determined for each, lets call it, "project".
I did put in platform/protocol in the title for that reason but "platform" is a colloquial term used by the public not really going in-depth over the meaning of the word.
Its kind of how the word "theory" is used in the mainstream circles. The colloquial meaning being: "Something that is of low certainty" while in actuality when something is described as a "theory" it is the highest possible level of explanation there is.
In the same way I think "platform" is used.
This review should first start by categorising and ranking the existing social media blockchain protocols (or similar nomenclature) and then include that review into the scores of a separate review specifically for so called social media, web2.5-web3 platforms.
This approach could be expanded and not only cover social media related protocols and platforms. These categories selected could apply to any crypto related project to determine its level of decentralization with minor tweaks. Most of these categories apply universally.
The question is what is the goal, what do you want to show.
Going beyond social media, a decentralization index encompassing all projects could have even wider application.
That is a literal science paper worth a PHD thesis.
Sure stuff! I think u mostly used the word platform when I read it. Referring to hive as a platform is incredibly limiting to hive. Imo, It has significantly damaged its brand over the years.
I think its mostly because the biggest frontends rarely, if ever do anything beyond the features built into Hive. Some examples aside.
But we can start calling it a protocol, i dont think it would be a too big of a shift nor do I think most people would feel any significant shift in their view of things.
When I read this, I took it as applying to Hive.blog rather than Hive the blockchain. I would say that Hive.blog is a platform, on par with Ecency, 3Speak, etc. But the blockchain is definitely a protocol. Maybe the answer is to clarify that your framework is applicable to Hive.blog and not the blockchain, since the blockchain is the primary tool that powers the platform.
Hive has basically all the features the dapps use built into it. Most platforms on other chains dont have half of that. You can compare them all under the umbrella of social media.
If you differentiate platforms and protocols theres basically nothing to compare to Hive. Hive is social media focused but its not a social media protocol. Minds is built on Ethereum, is Ethereum a social media protocol?
No, the social media umbrella in the framework covers anything social media related, be it protocol or platform so you can do comparisons.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't necessarily refer to Hive (the blockchain) as a social media protocol. It can be used for other things. For instance, DeFi applications, and gaming. It's just that the majority of the dapps built on it are for social media. So, I was speaking to what @sparkerz suggested as differentiating between the two. I don't think it's necessary to do that if you apply this framework to Hive.blog rather than Hive the blockchain. The blockchain consists of the set of tools that make Hive.blog what it is. Therefore, you're really judging the blockchain but you're applying it to the social media layer of the blockchain rather than the underlying technology itself.
This is a great start. I’m trying to be constructive here. I’d just like to clarify, the highly limiting, historical use of the word platform for hive. It really is a travesty since it is certainly not a platform and has confused the pants off of almost everyone in the industry to the tremendous detriment of hive itself.
Steemit.com and steem were also inaccurately both referred to as platforms.
Steemit.com was a platform. Steem was a blockchain protocol upon which other permission less platforms could be built
I think, even to this day this is why people still call hive a platform. It’s really bad for hive and as a community we must make sure that hive is NOT referred to as a platform, especially in such potentially viral wider industry reviews.
If you are going to categorise things in this way you need a separate set of rules for social media blockchain protocols and a separate set of criteria for web3 platforms. (Or at least the web2.5 ones trying to call themselves web3)
One of the criteria for a platform maybe wether or not it uses a censorship resistant, decentralised protocol for its back end. Platforms such as hive blog, peakd, ecency, Leo finance (the platform), Veews, actifit, 3speak and others on hive meet this criteria. Others that do not use hive do not meet this criteria and therefore probably shouldn’t even be called fully web3.
This review should first start by categorising and ranking the existing social media blockchain protocols (or similar nomenclature) and then include that review into the scores of a separate review specifically for so called social media, web2.5-web3 platforms.
The protocols are often distinguished as decentralised or not based on the extent to which they can be regulated and shut down. The presence of VC backed Pre mines, ICO’s, CEO’s and companies behind social media blockchain protocols generally are key indicators and criteria as to wether or not they are decentralised. Ability for non tech people to earn the token via a fair playing feild distribution mechanism such as POB should also be a key criteria. I see you have somewhat addressed this in section 7. But this is simply not applicable to platforms, only to social media blockchain protocols.
That was added under wealth distribution.
Depends how the platform uses the blockchain tech, to what extent, for what exactly.
You cant split them in Web2.5 and web3. If you wanted to do that you would not only have to develop a methodology to determine what web2, web2.5, web3 is, but you would then have to draw a line where you can objectively say something is web3 or not.
Since web2.5 exists in your view, that shows that you cant draw that line, thats why the 0.5 is there.
Those are vague terms, that dont really mean anything, or rather mean many different things to many different people, but what you can do is develop a framework to judge them on the same basis.
Decentralization categories can be objectively set and determined for each, lets call it, "project".
I did put in platform/protocol in the title for that reason but "platform" is a colloquial term used by the public not really going in-depth over the meaning of the word.
Its kind of how the word "theory" is used in the mainstream circles. The colloquial meaning being: "Something that is of low certainty" while in actuality when something is described as a "theory" it is the highest possible level of explanation there is.
In the same way I think "platform" is used.
This approach could be expanded and not only cover social media related protocols and platforms. These categories selected could apply to any crypto related project to determine its level of decentralization with minor tweaks. Most of these categories apply universally.
The question is what is the goal, what do you want to show.
Going beyond social media, a decentralization index encompassing all projects could have even wider application.
That is a literal science paper worth a PHD thesis.
Sure stuff! I think u mostly used the word platform when I read it. Referring to hive as a platform is incredibly limiting to hive. Imo, It has significantly damaged its brand over the years.
I think its mostly because the biggest frontends rarely, if ever do anything beyond the features built into Hive. Some examples aside.
But we can start calling it a protocol, i dont think it would be a too big of a shift nor do I think most people would feel any significant shift in their view of things.
When I read this, I took it as applying to Hive.blog rather than Hive the blockchain. I would say that Hive.blog is a platform, on par with Ecency, 3Speak, etc. But the blockchain is definitely a protocol. Maybe the answer is to clarify that your framework is applicable to Hive.blog and not the blockchain, since the blockchain is the primary tool that powers the platform.
Hive has basically all the features the dapps use built into it. Most platforms on other chains dont have half of that. You can compare them all under the umbrella of social media.
If you differentiate platforms and protocols theres basically nothing to compare to Hive. Hive is social media focused but its not a social media protocol. Minds is built on Ethereum, is Ethereum a social media protocol?
No, the social media umbrella in the framework covers anything social media related, be it protocol or platform so you can do comparisons.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from, but I wouldn't necessarily refer to Hive (the blockchain) as a social media protocol. It can be used for other things. For instance, DeFi applications, and gaming. It's just that the majority of the dapps built on it are for social media. So, I was speaking to what @sparkerz suggested as differentiating between the two. I don't think it's necessary to do that if you apply this framework to Hive.blog rather than Hive the blockchain. The blockchain consists of the set of tools that make Hive.blog what it is. Therefore, you're really judging the blockchain but you're applying it to the social media layer of the blockchain rather than the underlying technology itself.
I think it’s critical not to call hive a platform. Peakd and 3speak are platforms
Its a remnant of the steemit/steem days. It got embedded into the psyche of the community. Should be changed I agree.