That's an arbitrary number, but if you're concerned with rewards being distributed more broadly, I'm pretty sure downvotes are helpful not harmful in practice. The higher payouts get downvoted more. The rewards flow to the other payouts, including the smaller ones.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I wondered if I had missed something regarding the top 100 posts.
While generally what you are saying regarding posts and payouts is true, the devil's in the details, as always, and there are good reasons and bad ones to vote rewards to and from posts and authors.
I reckon any reasons stemming from differences of opinion, rather than substantial effort and contribution to societal improvement, and that generally and not only regarding Hive itself, are the bad ones. We only support free speech if we support the speech of folks we disagree with, as even the most repressive censor supports the speech of folks they agree with.
I am confident you grasp that fact, and I have always recommended that our votes promote free speech long before financial matters are considered at all. Without the former the latter has no value whatsoever. It is apparent on Hive that our money is a form of speech.
This is becoming more and more apparent by the day, and the value of free speech rises ever higher as censorship reduces it's availability in the market. Hive could profit more from that market than almost any other platform that exists, but we will vote that profit onto the platform, or repel it with censorship.
We will likely have to agree to disagree on the relationship between inflation rewards and free speech.
I think free speech can thrive independent of inflation rewards, and these rewards can (and in my view, should) be allocated in a manner largely independently of free speech.
The fact that you can post on the platform at all, and that communities and apps can be built to cultivate visibility and utility on the platform independent of inflation rewards, including with different methods for monetization or no monetization, is sufficient for free speech to thrive.
Of course, it is up to stakeholders to decide. If people want to buy in and financially reward 'free speech content' for it's own sake without exercising further discretion on content and value, that is as legitimate as any other vote. If you don't agree with my views, then vote differently.
They did. That's why this platform exists at all. The blogging aspect wasn't tacked on. It was the mechanism that generated value underlying the token. Speech is the basis for Hive's very existence, and your comment indicates your disregard for that fundamental aspect of Hive.
We do disagree on that.
Yes that's fine. People can vote to direct rewards a certain way, and others can vote a different way. The votes are added up and so it goes.
Speech, and even free speech, as compared to REWARDING specific content with stake inflation rewards are not the same thing. There are other ways to monetize content, including all the ways that exist on every other site on the internet. Those are available on Hive too, with fewer obstacles in terms of demonetization and censorship.
Stake inflation rewarding is not and should not be indiscriminate. It is a consensus process. Where stakeholders agree, rewards are paid, where stakeholders disagree, rewards are not paid, or are paid in less amounts. If we disagree on that, so be it. Hive on.