I see a lot of effort expended to decentralize the web. Nitter, Newpipe, etc., are constantly arising, and being swatted down like flies by centralized tech empires. This is the toothpaste coming out of the tube. While we think Big Tech and the NWO are indomitable, in fact Rome fell to decentralized Goths, not because they were barbarians, but because they were more decentralized and nimble, economically. Rome didn't dare allow political power on it's borders, which made policing borders impossible. Every time they let too much power get too far from the center, the resulting rebellion decreased the economic viability of the empire. Rome fell not because there were barbarians, but because it was centralized.
"Hive may be a little tricky or even impossible to implement across the board."
Good. I'm fine with frontends or second layers doing stuff that pushes the envelope. I'd like to see more of it. I think curation rewards are a fatal mistake for Hive, but no one cares what I think, and the fact we'd curate content without financial rewards doesn't matter, because the point of curation rewards is plunder. That's one of the things that makes Hive a government. Governments hate competition. I was very pleased when savings accounts with nominal ROI were introduced, but dismayed that curation rewards weren't eliminated to enable curation to be freed from pecuniary interest and arise as a natural expression of the community, and shunting whales from chasing ROI through parasitizing popularity contests to more prudent mechanisms, tested by time. Giving a choice between ROI or governance would create a vastly different focus of governors, and greatly reduce the risk of a new Sun shining on Hive.
Financialization got in the way there, I think. Why give that power away when you can just double your fun? Centralizing power is always the goal of government, once established. Eliminating curation rewards would have a very signal effect on Hive governance, IMHO. I'd like to see a different mechanism than raw stake determine what is appropriate for society, for once in my life. There are such vastly more valuable metrics being sold for a pittance today. The fact we occasionally reblog others' posts without remuneration, amongst myriad other examples, proves this. The fact BlackRock exists shows a pure plutocracy cannot avoid centralization. We need to be less like Rome and more like the Goths if we want to long survive.
Thanks!
We've both been around long enough to see what happened with 50/50 curation.
Used to be 75/25.
I said we should just go to 100%/0 back in those days.
But 50/50 does in fact incentivize exponentially more users to play by the rules and stop trying to game the system with self-upvotes. Free downvotes are a part of that as well. There hasn't been more downvote abuse on Hive even though downvotes are free to cast. There might even be less it's hard to tell. All I know for sure is that downvote drama back in the old days makes the stuff we see today look pretty tame.