Communities
You say communities and I hear gangs.
Groups that exclude voices based on centrally determined 'reasons' are echo chambers.
Perfectly acceptable in the 2nd layer foodie/gardening/latte art communities, political trolls need not apply, but hive governance is better shepherded by being widely distributed, imo.
Better in the hands of the many, than in the hands of a few.
Each community will have governance, that makes it not a collective cooperative but a hierarchy.
Putting rewards into the dao and doling them out is far too centralizing, for me.
The centralized ptb have led us to here, why would giving them you guys even more control over who gets rewards governing control make things any better when this framework has failed to deliver wider adoption/distribution up to this point?
IF not failed outright, at least has failed to provide a thriving environment that welcomes newbs, real newbs, not just greedy grubbin' sockpuppets.
@penguinpablo has left, or I would quote him, but 12k daily active authors out of 2.4 million, admittedly mostly bot, accounts is a poor reflection on the hive's retention/networking abilities.
We were averaging 16k daily authors, but 4k have left the platform since then.
I can't read @arcange's chart well enough, but it clearly shows us closer to 10k than 20k.
I really would like to avoid being the crypto betamax, if that is gonna be possible.
Communities that are doing a good job*
Large stakehodlers have been determining who is worthy for a long time, how about giving the crowd a chance to determine that?
Do you maintain that centralized 'planners' can better service the needs of a crowd than the crowd themselves?
What happened to the smooth and @abit that forced an 800mv cap on the pool?
That resulted in some distribution of the coins.
Plenty of excited newbs during that run.
Absent the n2 it would have a different, but mostly similar, impact?
Not a repeat, but a rhyme?
Who can better determine sockpuppet/bot posts from real people posts?
Who can better determine who deserves rewards than the crowd receiving the posts?
I get the centralization of control while our market cap was 15m usd, that was a long time ago, times have changed, but how the crowd is managed has not.
'Communities' have flopped, except those centrally supported, accept that the crowd doesn't want them, outside the greedy grubbers.
No self respecting hivizen bows to their authority over who is deserving and who is not.
These are short, and @larkenrose's creations.
Funny how he doesn't post here anymore?
The 800 MV experiment was fine. And indeed, we haven't had n^2 or anything of the sort for years. Did it make a big difference? Not in my view. It might have made matters worse in a sense, since there is no ability to attract the true high value (not just crypto) influencers by concentrating rewards according to attention. We had some real influencers when we could concentrate by n^2. They actually drew attention to Steem. Now we have a bunch of mid-tier non-influencers posting photo and travel blogs, and Hive-centric blog posts, receiving somewhat less but still concentrated rewards, and accomplishing almost nothing.
No, you're not going to have a system where a million bot accounts (i.e. "the crowd") get to vote rewards as they like (which will, with certainly be to each other), being paid primarily by inflating away the stake of the largest stakeholders.
It's fine to have something like reddit, with equal, easily botted votes, as long as there aren't rewards. With rewards it breaks down completely.
Any commercial activity, anywhere, at any time, is run by the golden rule. Whoever is providing the gold makes the rules. There is no way out of that.
Are you saying that bootstrapping the currency by distributing it widely to achieve the network effect is not what we are doing here?
Because I thought mass adoption lies through enticing participation broadly, and not just a few bag holders divvying up the spoils.
As to the concentration of the rewards, doesn't that lay at specific accounts' doorstep?
These accounts have names and real people controlling them.
There is one way, but nobody likes to choose it, because it comes at a loss of comfort.
Comfortable slaves never rebel.
@enforcer48 may prove to be right, until the price drops below a dime there will be no changes.
Buying in doesn't make sense at a higher price.
The return in power is too low.
Time will tell.
Not very well, no. The actual, active human, non-bot, non-spammer user base is very small, and even in that small group the rewards are relatively concentrated (but still not enough to attract real influencers who might in turn grow the user base), and even more importantly the user base is not growing.
Lol, and no wonder, make a sock puppet, put some 'good' content in it, and see how the sycophants treat you.
How many 'you are not good enoughs' would you put up with for a few pennies of effectively worth less than the time magic interwebz munies?
Most people coming here do not get a real greeting, they get met at the door by people with agendas.
Bump every account's roi by 50% and see if things don't work very differently over time.
If nothing else the coin will distribute.
We bumped small/new accounts by FAR more than 50% when we got rid of n^2 and then again when we got rid of convergent linear that "penalized" small payouts. It didn't make a lot of difference. You would have me believe that the next 50%, yeah that's the magic bump that is going to be a game changer. I call bullshit.
Hmm, that is pretty convincing evidence.
You could be right.
Maybe people won't come back once they find out that a new management system has taken root.
One that doesn't endlessly pump inflation to the largest accounts on the platform, but actually lets the coin distribute to those that want to grow their stake.
I firmly support not voting rewards to any authors not on track to make it to 1mv before selling any, or that fall below some minimum expected of high rep accounts.
It is unrealistic to expect you guys to support the price forever while folks are dumping everything they are given.
But, this is on the curators.
Bad curation is hurting the hive.
That's you guys at the top, again.
Why would you suggest that doling out rewards to compliant communities could be a viable alternative?
That doesn't sound very decentralized to me.
It sounds like setting up a random number of new bosses under the even smaller number of old bosses.
It does sound like it pumps the bags of hierarchies and increases sycophancy.
It doesn't sound like user centered management of distributing the governance token of the hive.
But, that may just be me.
Not when they're actively flagged off the platform.
Every time you say rewards pool, I hear your personal stake.
You will be surprised when the golden rule is obsolete.
Did you see my post today?
I think rebutting it will be difficult.
'But, I have 10m hive on an exchange that is being diluted.'
I seriously think we are gonna have to go back to a dime before anything changes.