Rewards Pool

in #hive3 months ago

Since we moved from x^y to linear rewards, we opened the gates to silly land.
The latest suggestion is to abandon rewards.
Because content curation (reading) is too hard. And... AI bad!

Should this idiotic idea gain any more traction:
I will power down and move into BTC, until someone steps up to fork this thing back into what it was intended to be.

Crabs in a bucket

Not crows on a telephone line.

Let's face it: The people running the show now, thought it was a good idea to name this thing 'Hive'.
...have you seen HAF?
At this point, I wouldn't trust them to change a lightbulb.


I am not smart enough or skilled enough to do much about it by myself.
I am, however, willing to:

  • Move all my Hive assets to a new chain or fork, that brings the idea back, which was described in the original whitepaper.
  • Go full time into dev mode for 1-2 years and help where I can with my limited skills.

I have a pretty clean track record. I have said some silly stuff and I have made mistakes, but overall, I hope I have build some trust here.
It's all on chain... at least for now, until they also get rid of the blockchain itself.
I really thought I was part of something new here, something that would outlast myself.
I really thought I was part of some revolutionary new technology and governance model.
Maybe it was an idea ahead of its time, maybe I am the nutter now.
It felt good for a while, anyways.

Times change

I am done fighting windmills. I am loyal to a code, that no longer exists.
I have made friends and I have learned a lot. Happy days.
Nothing lasts forever, though, and it might be time to move on.

I really wish @dan would pull his head out of his ass.
He had a great idea.


Hive is kinda becoming a real steem fork, no more read in the trending page or maybe one folks read the post and decided it was worth a lot, then the first delegation for votes appears, burn token for votes, buy token for votes, and the lastest and coolest invention from leofinance :
Buy my 10.- premium subscription and get more than 10.- back in votes during the month, they will upvote the "quality" of your posts but in case you don't post enough votes you amazing 3 character short comments.

Wouldn't mind on a fork, even if the rewards start at 0, even if i don't keep the few token i had.

I liked the n2, too.
Too bad 'the whales' couldn't contain their greed.
Changing the code to suit their greed was just too much, imo.
We downvote self voters and applaud the code being change to favor those with the most.

What exactly is the code change that was made?

Well, there is a long list of them.
I came just before hf16.
It wasn't long after that that stinc set rewards to linear and went on a two year development walkabout, so that their bidbot friends could reap us, then 'they', many of whom are still here and 'in good standing' with the community, sold an undercover poor tax that took more the less you had and topped out at 50%, you'd have to look through the various forks to get more specific details, but there is a long history of self serving changes to the code.
Often just sprung on us with no real notice, nor discussion.

That said, what we have now is nearly friction free, it is much better than what we had when I got here.

Ideally, we would figure out a way to get back to the original design, but unless we could lock down the bots that's not gonna happen.
I think there are few enough of us that we, with a little teamwork, could put the kibosh on the socks and bots, but that isn't a widely held sentiment.

When I first got here, there was a 24hr payout and a 30 day payout.

The order in which you voted on a post was important, you could double or more your curation reward by picking content that was later voted by others.
The more others, the more your reward was multiplied.

All changed because the greedy wouldn't stop, and the more fairly minded didn't have what it would take to force the issue.
Greedy folks gonna greed.™

We forked to put an end to bidbots, then we let them come back but only if people sold their votes wholesale, ie, delegating for profit, or added a second layer token to obfuscate the nature of what was really happening, vote selling.

If I had been a bidbot owner, I would have been bent out of shape over that.
It makes me wonder what the trade off was.

I've posted about much of this, if you care to scroll back that far.

Thanks for the info. I will have a read back to understand more. Appreciate the time and explanation.

Greedy folks gonna greed.™

We forked to put an end to bidbots, then we let them come back but only if people sold their votes wholesale, ie, delegating for profit, or added a second layer token to obfuscate the nature of what was really happening, vote selling.

Why did I unfollow you? Sorry :(

I love you.


What do you call a marine mammal that should do something?
An oughtter.

Credit: reddit
@felixxx, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of antisocialist

Delegate Hive Tokens to Farm $LOLZ and earn 110% Rewards. Learn more.

Pool rewards are a function of r_shares.
They used to be non linear (x^n), then in HF19, they were changed to linear/proportional.

Simplified Example:

Right now my vote is worth 0.90$ - with no regards to how many other people voted the content. It is 0.90$ when I am the only one voting for a post, it is 0.90$ when the post is already sitting at an expected payout of 100$.

Before, it was hard to predict the value of a single vote, because it also mattered, if other votes were active on the post. So just a rough example: 0.20$ when I am the only one voting, but on a 100$ post my vote could be worth 2$.
This would also mean, however, that my downvote on a 100$ post would deduct 2$.
More eyes, more impact.

The problem was, that the whales are lazy and don't like to read, so they all voted on the same post via autovote, which lead to just a few authors getting all the rewards.
But that was a problem with collusion and general ignorance, not the code itself.

I do believe however that only a few posts per day should get rewards, because the average user will only read a handful of posts per day in the real world.
The top content gets by far the most views and should get by far the highest rewards.

bla bla bla I could go on, but this seems too complicated for most people anyways and I am annoyed right now, sorry.

If the software is supposed to interact with people, but does not take human psychology seriously, then the problem is not in laziness, ignorance, collusion or greed. The problem is in the software. It is best studied in game development. When the game offers many ways to achieve goal and the most efficient is also boring, then players will overwhelmingly choose that path and complain about it. The same situation is with rewards on Hive and efficiency of bots.

There are two reward curves. First is how posts compete with each other for reward pool, second determines how curators compete for their share in post payout. First curve was changed to linear in HF19, then to convergent linear in HF21 and then in Hive back to linear in HF25. When it is not linear, it can be set to make popular posts get relatively more rewards (bots will vote for posts from authors historically most popular) or relatively less. Bots can adapt to the curve, because they can be made to observe all posts. Humans can't do that. Therefore nonlinear curve promotes use of bots over manual organic curation. Similar thing with curation reward curve - it was changed to square root in HF19, convergent square root in HF21 and linear in HF25. There is however something else that influences curations - voting windows. Currently it is fairly easy for normal people to achieve the same results as mindless bots (some people would prefer if the first window was wider though). More than that, people have higher chance to know if the topic will be controversial to attract downvotes - maybe AI bots will be able to do that in the future. Manual curators also have one more advantage. If they build considerable group of followers, by attracting votes through reblogs and promotional posts, they can pull late voters to the posts they voted on. Late voters are the source of extra rewards for early curators (they increase value of the post linearly, but their share in curation is slashed). I can't see bots doing that.

And "lazy, greedy" whales have very easy way to get consistent curation rewards - vote for hbd.funder posts (rewards going to support hbd-stabilizer). You don't need to be a whale to use that method and I also use it when I have too much voting mana before I have to leave for sleep or work. These posts receive hefty rewards day in day out. So, use of bots is not the most efficient in current environment - if you don't feel confident in your ability to curate, it makes more sense to delegate to team of manual curators than to use bot. It makes healthier environment than it was before.

This explains a lot.

It's a software that let's people interact with other people, though.
If your design is meant for multiplayer and large maps and the map isn't populated enough, then it won't work. Ever tried SQUAD with only a handful of players on the map?

My complaint was always that there were too few players (whales) so the game-theory regulating mechanics, that could have balanced it, never kicked in. Instead of letting others join the game, they were playing in an almost empty world and then acted like it was a design flaw.

It also always felt like a flaw (and I have talked about that extensively) that you need to vote to get better ROI. There should be a reward for not voting at all. Voting for hbd.funder would fix that, but I feel like there is a solution out there that's much more elegant and doesn't involve that hack.

I'll have to think a bit more about rewards...
rewards over r_shares are strictly linear.
r_shares aren't, because the pool...
I have an answer, but I can't really form a cohesive text, yet.

I have an answer, but I can't really form a cohesive text, yet.

I would be interested with what you might come up with.

Yes, an empty landscape is bad for a game, that's right.

The greatest problem of this chain is the bigot moralism of the downvote mafia and norons like antisocialist and many more.

They are destroying as a Part of ceiminal structure around Mark Jeftovic's Hivewatchers valuable content creators.

So this blockchain has no future.

Too much facismn too many idiots and ideology and no entrepreneurship at all.

The philosopy of destruction by illegal acting and lazy stakeholders is destroying the future of this ecosytem.

The problem was, that the whales are lazy and don't like to read ...

I do believe however that only a few posts per day should get rewards, because the average user will only read a handful of posts per day in the real world.

I'd say, even less.

Who does not like to read, should not give a vote.

True determinability of a text can only be provided by the reader. If "reading" is not something one likes to do and if one is still too lazy to engage with what one has read and is unable to grasp both the strong and weak aspects of a text, the only right thing to do would be to abstain from voting altogether.

The question can therefore be asked of oneself: Have I read a text in its entirety? Do I have something to say about it that is of value to the recipient? What could such a value be?

If I want an author to improve the potential of their expression, then I provide them with constructive criticism. Which presupposes that the writer is interested in such criticism. But if the writer is neither interested in increasing his potential, nor in wanting to refine his writing style, nor is he willing to spend time and energy on an open debate, then all my own interest in constructiveness is wasted.

It looks to me like people online no longer read, but vote on the basis of headlines and snippets of text that happen impulsively rather than thoughtfully. What "the market wants" is more of a distorted form, because it grabs "likes" and "votes", it's a hunt for superficial confirmation, but cares little about the content, yet pretends all the more vehemently that it is about such. What was already true for "yesterday's newspaper" is all the more true for online content.

In this sense, loyalty votes are the worst (I myself am "guilty" of casting them). Even if I like a particular author, I need to treat each and every single blog post as if it's the first one I ever get to read from this particular author. Reading everything as if it was written from someone I do neither know nor sympathize with. I shall be the one who is motivated to act in this manner. I cannot make others to behave like that.

I can only set the most attainable highest standard I can come up with. If I lower my own standard, I compromise myself and, as a consequence, I am an unfortunate role model to others.

I could reply to this, and I could maybe convince you of my solutions.
It would take me hours.

I am on some different time, since I wrote the above, though.

Just this one as food for thought:

loyalty votes are the worst

I disagree. Context matters.
That is how when I post a picture of my food nobody cares, but if Kim Kardashian does, millions of people are interested.

Right, context matters, I see it the same way. I approach it differently, though.

There's a scene in Game of Thrones where Varys (the eunuch) stands in front of Daenerys Targaryen and she demands unconditional loyalty from him. He replies to her something like: "If you want unquestioning loyalty when you might opt for something that goes against everything I have chosen to stand for, then I will contradict you and refuse my service."

Is not every situation in which someone presents you with something potentially like a new blank page and you can decide whether what is on this new page deserves your support or not? Is this not actually something you prefer?
For me, loyalty does not mean that someone always says "yes" to me, quite to the contrary, it is that they can say "no" when I utter something idiotic or plan something stupid or perform under my standard.

Personally, I couldn't care less what's on K.K.'s plate. But sure, if everyone wants to be like Kardashian (or whoever is currently trendy), let them try.

For a start, we could do questions and answers. I wouldn't want you to take hours ;)

This is exactly why I am not going into further details.

Hey @ghs06, here is a little bit of BEER from @indextrader24 for you. Enjoy it!

Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your BEER.

Hey @ghs06, here is a little bit of BEER from @janasilver for you. Enjoy it!

If you like BEER and want to support us please consider voting @louis.witness on HIVE and on HIVE Engine.

Agree, removing the reward pool would completely destroy the unique social experiment hive is. There would be no incentive to create content and to curate any more.

This idea will never be implemented. It would be the end of Hive.
Bad enough that they wasted hours in a town hall to discuss this nonsense. I hope this should be enough and now let´s tackle the real problems.

Just the fact that this idea wasn't immediately shut down, and made fun of, triggers my intuition here.
I feel the signals.
The idiots are taking over.

True, I was also quite surprised that this "idea" was seriously discussed and not immediately ruled out. As if the main goal was not to offend the rhondron guy. All too political correct. Bullshit should be called out that way!

Agreed. Too many idea guys getting too vocal and not called out on being utterly stupid.

Sadly, the idiots seem to be in charge. Let's make another Zealy campaign or upvote comments instead of content..

comments are content...

Yes, but not by the HBD Stabilizer

Which problems Do you see, which need to be tackled immidiately?

E.g. lack of effective marketing, instead wasting 1000s of HBD per day for projects with no transparency about the progress.

What the hell is the point of onboarding when we hemorrhage the users that bother to sign up and start posting? Out of ~2.5M accounts, we have ~3k people posting today. Everyone that falls for the marketing pitch, comes here and finds out it's malarkey leaves and wages a personal hate campaign.

Marketing a platform that drives people away is literally creating an anti-Hive press corps. How about we unfuck the rewards structure that has maintained the oligarchy since the Ninjamine and disappoints every n00b that gives Hive a shot? How about we rein in the opinion flaggots that drove dozens of popular influencers off the platform for bogus complaints, like lack of engagement, not advocating the platform, or posting elsewhere too?

Hive isn't dying. It's being killed.

Edit: not that I disagree about throwing thousands of HBD at projects with no accountability or transparency, but funding a rally car isn't going to change the rewards structure that provides a mean post reward ~1HBD and keeps the same 37 whales in control of Hive governance. How about we spend that resource on keeping users posting?

I don´t know what´s the best, but if you remove the one feature that differentiates us from any other platform (that you can start earning without investment), what will be left?

On this we agree, and I am confident most of the community does as well. r0nd0n is a out of the box thinker. I know him and admire him from the pir8 radio shows he used to do on Discord. He ran @freezepeach for years, but it was a thankless job and few donors supported the effort, which eventually made it futile. He's not against the community in any way, despite he and I don't always agree on every policy detail.

I think he's searching for solutions, and perhaps the idea of separating author rewards from the governance token sounded like a good idea that would cause the whales to lighten up on opinion flagging and let free speech blossom, or at least blossom more than it is now.

I am confident he's not toadying up as a minion of oligarchs. He's got a heart for the community, every bit as strong as my own.

However, onboarding more users Hive will disappoint will not benefit the platform at all. We need to create a rewards structure that puts more benefits in the wallets of the creators that produce all the value Hive has. Social media has become the largest financial sector of global markets in less than a decade, and Hive is horribly missing that train. Our thesis of directly rewarding creators for content instead of centralizing profit in a stock corporation has been horribly mishandled. That's the problem that keeps Hive from retaining even a fraction of 1% of the users that have signed up, whether it's bogus opinion flagging, or the curation rewards farming the accounts of their friends and sock puppets, the lack of a better shake on Hive than creators get on vile platforms like Fakebook, Youtool, and Twatter is a terrible demonstration of competence of our governance.

The same 37 whales have more than half the stake on the platform, and this reveals that after 7 years of operations, they maintain their take of the bulk of rewards from the pool, through curation rewards, the DHF, witness 10%, and all the other mechanisms besides author rewards, because few of them blog. It's that avarice that keeps Hive from success. The plutocratic governance model, with stake equaling political power, makes Hive utterly defenseless from outside stake that could buy the entire platform for pocket change. That's what happened to Steem, and will happen here, sooner or later (if it hasn't already been ongoing, as whales sell their accounts rather than their tokens, to avoid making the handovers public knowledge), and that also makes those stakes golden parachutes the whales can ride off into the sunset on if Hive gets bought out.

It's hard to devise a plan besides moving author rewards to a second layer that distances them from governance, and I don't know how else we might rectify the problem when the whales will resort to whatever is necessary to maintain their governance as they have for 7 years.

I agree with your analysis as biggest hurdle to change things. Maybe another way would be to reduce the impact of curating? 50/50 seems not fair given the efforts of authoring vs. curating.

what will be left?

Feeless nearly instant transactions, immutable blogs, and if we start building now, we can have tokenized communities that handle rewards.

How this should work in practice? There are bigger communities and smaller ones. Do you want to give each one a separate token, like now the tribe tokens? From where comes the money if not from thin air, and how the value of these 2nd layer tokens will be ensured, if they have no governance role. We already have enough of PAL tokens and the like, they all failed, even the overhyped LEO lost big.

Great post, my friend!!! I just wrote a similar one but with not this hard message... 🙂

I share the opinion of @bil.prag that removing will not be implemented and if it is implemented, I suppose we will see another hard fork... and maybe go back to the original idea that you proposed...

Anyway, I don't see consensus around this question and I see something more than that... I see a deeper and deeper gap between those on top and those who are creating content, manually upvoting, engaging in communities, and creating bonds online and offline...

And we know what happens when that gap becomes too wide and deep...

It's great to see "activated" again! 😃

Yeah those at the "top" are mostly delusional, no real understanding of content creation. A lot of them harvest free money from the DHF without really having any expertise. They aren't creators, they're on par with boomer bloggers that might post once every few weeks.

Exactly... That happens when you disconnect from the rest of the community, and that's exactly what is happening lately... They live in a bubble, but sooner or later, they will become aware of that...

Since we moved from x^y to linear rewards ...

Do you mean the curation rewards because I didn't know about such change?

...have you seen HAF?

What's this? I didn't find something fitting.


Do you mean the curation rewards because I didn't know about such change?

That's like 5-6 years ago... hf15 maybe... (edit: it was hf19)

What's this? I didn't find something fitting.


but to show how ridiculously overengineered it is check this graph (scroll down a little)

That took years and large sums of money.
I'd guess ~3 people are using it today.

Very late I say thank you very much for your answer and the links! But as a layman I understand very few of the latter topic.

@mundharmonika sent you LUV 🙂 (1/1)

Made with LUV by crrdlx

When I came to hive I thought people would actually read me. Some will read my old content too. People from outside of hive will read me from search engines.

Again and again I come to a conclusion that it will remain a ghost town if we read content on day 1 only for the sake of Curation. Content life should exist way beyond 7 days. Not just some technology talk or hive will moon to 10x but real life blogs too.

The original idea was based on the insight, that most people never read beyond the top 10 headlines on a given day.

Sure, there is content that stays relevant for a long time or will gain traction much later, but this is not a one-tool-for-everything tech. This tech is only good at one thing and the very notion to cater to many different things and formats is what ruined it in the first place.

Top 10 is filled with game or project updates. :(

on that, it kinda depends on the community. if there is a community for your texts people will read it (probably not in 100k but i think we are a bit misled by numbers of supper popular creators. few 1000 is a big number).

abut the search engines, you need to write stuff that will show on search engines. i am for sure not the best blogger, but i do have few blogs high in the search results and they get few views every day.

abandoning rewards is mentioned every few years. and it will not happen in the next X years and maybe never.

Author rewards r too low even for top 1 author of the month. My concerns are different. Maybe we will talk about that another day. Time to sleep

Reading is a problem. I don't read the top content because it is generally written by older pre Hive users who have big matey matey upvotes to each other.
I read the smaller Hive users ..
The rewards pool is what makes hive unique. Love reading all the comments you get in a post like this because all of it I have no clue about. Except Hive parallels life the rich and greedy run the place and just get richer and greedier.
Me a small user deals with it or leaves.

I thought you were someone who might get it (the idea)...
I still think you do, but you clearly don't believe in it.

I wouldn't bother reading shit, if my vote was only worth 0.02$ - total waste of time.

Please consider undelegating and aquiring stake to reward the people, you would like to read more of. (Not me, myself)

You can do it. We need you, ok?

Not sure I do get it. Perhaps Hive is not the blockchain for me at all then.

That's intellectual dishonesty...

Maybe I am pushing to hard.
Hive is the blockchain for you, unless you let some cunt like me scare you off :P

It does beg a couple of questions though as I have been here two years. That is my usual boredom threshold timespan in any country or project or even job, so is Hive for me. I do things because they are fun. Is Hive still fun? Is Hive the best blockchain for me to make the best financial returns?
Good food for thought.

I do things because they are fun. Is Hive still fun? Is Hive the best blockchain for me to make the best financial returns?

It would be a miracle cure if it combined those 2 things seamlessly.

Reading is a problem. I don't read the top content because it is generally written by older pre Hive users who have big matey matey upvotes to each other.

Same here. I've been here for years but I NEVER read the top posts. They're mostly trash but part of a circlejerk. I stick to my own community and like you, focus on smaller posts.

es una mala idea a mí punto de vista cambiar lo qué está hasta los momentos funcionando bien. Pero bueno es una decisión que escapa a nuestras manos


$PIZZA slices delivered:
@mundharmonika(2/5) tipped @felixxx

We are lacking serious governance from the whales at the moment and we don't hear anything from them. That is the biggest shame.

they are busy censoring the platform.