The problem is blogging is not unique to Hive. The rewards are what make Hive unique.
I think Hive needs to be more than a blog. Especially with AI which will become impossible to catch.
But when Hive is used for non blogging that leads to upvotes being used in a way other people don’t agree with.
There are no right answers here and it will be interesting to see if anything materially changes about Hive overtime or if it will just maintain the status quo.
The most unique thing about Hive is probably being able to earn rewards, similar to blogging and all the genre's that entails, through comments. I don't know of any platforms that allow regular community members/followers/fanbase to earn by engaging.
The whole AI thing is widespread, I'm sure others will figure out something eventually or we'll all have to just make videos or something harder to fake to ensure we're real and unique, at least for starters until we've built up some trust that people here already have pre-AI era.
The lack of fees is also a big thing that makes hive unique, being able to tip your favorite creators with no fee. Some times we take all those things too granted and start thinking about how to have the cake and eat it too with curation misuse.
"Curation misuse" is very subjective and means different things to different people.
I believe the people with the most Hive stake get to make that call and use their stake how they wish.
I just don't think a smart rich person outside of Hive is going to be interested in playing that game. The only way you win is if you buy more Hive than the other person but then you still lose because you just become someone else's exit liquidity.
Maybe it's about what you do with the influence then and not try and figure out how to abuse it at the cost of the other stakeholders or to try and sell it off to someone else at a higher price.
Not sure where this discussion is going but we've had a good 2 years of misuse under our belt and a majority of stakeholders, even former bid bots agreed to stop such activity, so I don't see why a few smaller newer projects think they should be allowed to, or new future investors and/or earners.
I would argue downvoting uses influence at the cost of the other stakeholders being downvoted…
That’s why they leave, because it has been communicated they are not worthy Stakeholders.
I’m not trying to take the conversation anywhere, I think downvoting is necessary and was just sharing my opinion.
I rarely blog and don’t power down my Hive. I don’t have an agenda.
I wish everyone success in their endeavors and I hope everyone finds what they are looking for.
The communication is to stop doing what they're doing, even after plenty of literal communication.
It's not like people are talking pseudoscience to them, it's easy to see and determine that what they do is against cueation. The rules of the chain are easy, ~50% for you as the curator, ~50% for others as authors. Not 90% for you because you delegate to a project that gives you your 10 daily votes back to you after taking a fee no matter what you post or if anyone reads it and no matter if no one else gets any inflation, etc through different schemes but in the end the same outcome.
For sure man. I think that is a good example for rules of the chain.
I do think there are more rules than that though and I do think there is a lot of subjectivity for who gets downvoted and why, and even that is always changing.
At the end of the day, the more we can get along and work towards the common goal of making hive a better place, the more Hive will be successful!
Cheers man!
If I downvoted people based on who I didn't like I wouldn't have enough downvote mana even if I powered up all liquid hive.