I appreciate Dan for doing that. Many moons ago Dan you published a video and I remember it quite well. I can't quote 100% from memory but it was something like below:
if you like something upvote, if you don't like something downvote, its not personal
Somewhere along the line people forgot this simple fact, that when we publish a post, we have no control on voting. People may upvote or downvote. If it is an honest post, it shouldn't matter to the author. As the way hive is designed it is immutable.
Therefore, the only thing remains is the reward. As per hive (and original steem whitepaper) the author only gets the reward on the 7 day at payout, before that the reward belongs to the reward pool. Many people have hard time understanding this simple fact.
All these discussion is leading to if we want rewards at all on the Layer 1. More and more I am geting inclined to that we do not. Layer 1 can just be for the stakeholders we move the author rewards to Layer 2. Which is basically the main content of this post.
Problem with removing voting rewards, I don't even like calling them that; I call it token distribution of the base layer governance system. We are on a coin voting platform. The inflation is lowering every block until it'll be sub 1%. 1% inflation is very very small, but will still play some role in further decentralizing governance. If we make the mistake of allowing only one group of people IE Miners, Dao contractors, or whomever, we could fall into centralization before we know it. I know some will say some people just power down and sell, but id always wager and say we have some very, very long term outstanding hivers who earned a lot through creating content and being active. For every 1 loyal hiver PoB has created, I'd trade you a dozen short-term dumpers. As inflation lowers, the dumping will have little to no impact on price, but the loyal hivers we helped mold in the early days will continue to shape hive well into the future.
Agree! For the last 3 years I haven’t sold a single hive, bought some. Moved into SL. You did the same. All your hive are bought from the market.
So we agree.
Redistribution is a hard concept for people to understand Dan. That’s the issue we are facing.
yep.
"Could fall into"... This platform has always been centralized, and will never stop being centralized. The dPoS system guarantees that - never mind the old Ninja Mine and all the other BS.
Good point.
However, the prospect of a witness reshuffle apparently struck a nerve.
Do you support the principle of free-speech and the right to a fair-and-public-trial ?
The only way to change the witnesses would be to change the stake-holders, which would mean someone has to put a LOT of money into Hive, to try to change things.
Anyone with the kind of funds to get stake like that, I would definitely recommend putting it into something besides Hive. Don't try to take a system designed for 1 thing (maintaining whale stake) and use it for something else... just build something else instead.
I support the idea of Free Speech, because it falls under the category of You can do whatever you want as long as you are not threatening, harming, or defrauding another.
A "fair & public trial" is definitely not something that I support. The whole idea of punitive justice exists only to serve the state, and those who control the state. In actual conflict resolution, things like a "trial" have no place.
There is a lot of stake that is not currently voting for any witnesses.
That is certainly an alternative that merits discussion.
I have often felt that the current model is not very investor-centric. I don't know of many investors who would want to bother with 'curating' in order to maximize their investment.
With that said, Hive's value proposition is far deeper than social media. Keeping social media rewards as a Layer 1 feature need not be a sacred cow, imho. However, I don't see any immediate advantages to eliminating social media rewards from Layer 1, and there would definitely be disruptions associated with doing so -- and thus unforeseeable unintended consequences.
A middle-of-the-road solution might be to enable stakeholders to 'delegate' a portion of their HP to a special account that continually self-votes half its HP (i.e. allows its voting manna to exceed 100% exactly half the time), then returns 100% of those rewards to the delegators. Basically, that allows investors to choose whether they want to curate or whether they just want to bank their would-be curation rewards, without hassling with curating (and they can choose how much of their stake they want to apportion each way, and can change that percentage from time to time).
The advantage would be that the reward pool will be larger (because the special account only votes half the time) and there would be much fewer autovoters muddying up manual curation efforts.
Sounds complex, and I am sure it goes against the core hive values. But it is a possible discussion point.
Are you attending hive fest?
Do you know the core members? Might be a good idea to get to know some of them during the hive fest.
I would like to, but I will be traveling during most of it.
Hopefully I can attend some parts, even if it's hit and miss.
I’ll be there and I’m certainly looking forward to it! 👍
Hi,
there is no binding contract between the founders/operators of this blockchain and the individual users.
Everyone is liable for their own content, as happens, for example, with the use of images and texts that someone publishes as the author. You are relying on statements made by individuals or on a paper that is considered a guideline but does not call itself a law, which the operators (or witnesses) would take legal action if it were disregarded. Basically, they have no authority to do so, as they are exempt from such obligations. You don't have a clear situation here, even though you might prefer that.
Since the nature of blockchain in relation to blogging is something entirely different and still new (compared to private blogs or other media channels where there are clear payment modalities), I think it is understandable that someone would not consider their post as a "draft" but as a finished result. Understanding the seven days as a "holding pattern" is quite a lot to ask, when opinions and reactions to a publication can and do arrive from minute one. (Also, marketing differs).
In principle, it would be wiser not to vote or comment on a contribution as soon as it is published, but only towards the end, in case the author still makes changes. But since the function exists from the moment of publication (including monetary incentives), most people consider their own post and the posts of others as "completed" and I don't know anyone who seriously changes their own piece so much that it would take up, for example, a change percentage of over 20 percent. I think, this contradicts your statement somewhat about the 7 days. I find it anything than simple.
I don't know what difference you make between authors and stakeholders. Everyone is a stakeholder, including authors. What makes you think they don't have a stake? Once you collect value in your wallet, you are already a stakeholder, aren't you? The moment you theoretically put yourself in a position to trade cryptos, you are a holder of cryptocurrency. So I would like you to explain what you mean by this statement? Are you referring to the operators of the servers, the determiners of the content regarding the hard forks, the so-called witnesses? Who exactly do you mean by stakeholders?
Thank you.
You are absolutely correct. This is exactly what I am saying.
Since no such contract exits and never will. Consumers does not have any loyalty to the author/creators either. We can chose to vote what we like and how we like it.
Everyone is a stakeholder. The difference is, how much stake is necessary to have a meaningful opinion in governance. Again the answer is subjective. There is no real number and its a sliding scale. I have seen people taking meaningful part in governance with 100K HP, and I have seen people taking no role in governance with 12M HP. But usually since this is a DPOS blockchain it is widely considered proportional to your powered up hive.
You can have a better understanding if you read the whitepaper.
https://hive.io/whitepaper.pdf
What do you mean by "meaningful"?
In the context of numbers, i.e. the level of stakes, I can't derive meaningfulness. It's communicated content that provides meaning and in principle does not need a stake to motivate someone to make a suggestion or participate in the design of the platform.
But how I understand you, in other words, the higher your stake, the more weight and importance your word should have. Am I understanding you correctly? If someone with 12 M HP decides not to assert a will to shape, they could still do so at any time and have an influence. Whereas, on the other hand, if someone has far less than 100K HP, it makes no difference if they want to influence, right?
If no one has loyalty to each other, the whole thing here would be nothing more than a kind of gambling, where you just bet your chips on a whim, no matter what content you are playing with. No matter what authors write, it is not important what they write, but only that they write so that the game continues.
But I see something different. Loyalty and the formation of communities of interest are taken very seriously here, just as certain behaviour is either rewarded or punished.
The - one might say foolish - side that sees it all as great fun is not seen as funny at all, and the people who very seriously monitor behaviors and opinions seem to want to prevent the very face of Hive shown on the outside from being perceived as a gambling hall and a place of arbitrariness.
In my view, this contradicts the "we can choose what we want and how we want it." There are hundreds of etiquette posts, advice articles on voting and commenting behaviour, and a constant argument about these matters.
If it is as you say, no one would really want to spread the word that this is decentralised governance. Because of course that is not true. For me personally, I clarified the whole matter a few years ago with one of the witnesses here, who finally said that it is anything but decentralised. Basically, the marketers say something different than what's in it.
In principle, this is what could be written on the packaging:
Nobody takes seriously what is published here. It is a matter of complete arbitrariness. The rewards are neither rewards, the punishments neither punishments. No one wants to help anyone succeed, because the individual's personal blog is merely a pass-through for number shifts. All that is experienced in terms of meaning is a charge of meaning that is in truth unimportant.
I've read the paper several times back then and I bet, very few people read it. For me, that's subjective, it's not a law, it's an approach how one can look at this matter.
But do you really think, that is how the people here perceive this environment? I don't think so. Up- or Downvoting is connected to emotions drawn from the contents being published. If it'd be totally un-attached to emotion, there would be no need for either up- or downvotes.
Try not to write wall of text.
I can give you a simple rule of thumb. Purchase 100K-500K hive from the market and power up. You will see that you are participating in governance. If you can't, then don't worry about upvote or downvote. Live your life and enjoy.
Have a good day
Interesting, you want me to rethink my answer. I think it's fine as it stands.
There's always the possibility that someone else won't mind the length, it's public here. If it doesn't meet interest, I can live with it.
I already confirmed that this seems to be the state of the art. In case, you nevertheless read what I answered.
Basically, I don't take a position that is fixed in principle, it varies depending on the situation/topic and who I meet. If I ride on principles, I may ride them to shame.
You too, have a good day.
so to clarify, if u have a big enough wallet, u can be a douche or a king, and people will fall at your feet. and if u are broke af and posting just to put food in your mouth, it doesnt matter how 'smart' you are, or how much u COULD change the platform for the better/worse, because noone will see / listen to you, because they just want to get some whaledick
or at least thats what my 4 years+ have taught me XD
Indeed, such things can be observed. But away from the big theatres, people go to the smaller stages and what lasts for a long time can one day be quite a substantial structure, which may even be able to feed one or two people. If you are an artist in life, you often make do with little, but you are your own boss (well, in many things, if not in everything). You shouldn't mess with the world, it often bites back, but you don't have to pander to it either. I agree with that :)
That is exactly how Hive has always worked - with the small exceptions of the awesome, principled, whales/investors - who have supported the little folks, helped support journalists, and pushed back against the oligarchs.
sounds about right
There it is folks! Plain for all to see! Your words don’t matter unless you have a higher stake than the arbitrators giving their thumbs up and thumbs down in the coliseum of content that we all call Hive. Thus… the perpetration of literal “Hive Mind” and the manifestation of abuse across the blockchain. THIS is where the problem originates… and THIS is why we are NOT A TOP 10 COIN. [period]
INFORMATIONWAR
Well said! Hear hear! 👏
:)
Great point.