This is really frustrating. Can it be that those downvoters have a hidden agenda, that in reality they don´t want to become Hive a success and get millions of DAUs (vs. ten thousends today)? Because then their influence would go down and this kind of mass adoption would lure some attention from (tax) Authorities? They get a comfy income right now from Hive as it is and maybe they don´t want any changes? Seems bizarre, as mass adoption would multiply the Hive price and they would benefit most of it. I really don´t have any other reasonable explanation for this toxic behavior. Or they are just all bought by the deep state? Can´t be, right?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't know the exact answer but elements of what you are saying seem likely to me. I don't really want to hypothesis too much because possibilities can get very ugly very quickly! To look at it from a PR and marketing perspective, there are always Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) for any business/project and public perception of what the highest stakeholders are doing in a DPOS system is key to all of them. Like it or not, the biggest stakeholders play a role in the success of the system that they may not appreciate or even want. If they don't want that responsibility and just want to stay as investors, that's fine - but then they shouldn't get so active in daily outcomes on the network. If they want to get so busy in voting then that's fine too - but they need to accept and even speak out about the effects of their behaviour on the entire network.
We currently have no central point of discussion for Hive - since the 'town hall' sessions ended (presumably due to @aggroed having success with his projects). Maybe that format of meeting needs to happen regularly for this to progress into solutions.
Actually we definitely need to bring those Town Halls back.
We absolutely need the community involvement. And if the community isn't involved in our own governance... And we just theoretically rely on some code.
Tell me which one of the Terminator movies we would like to live under.
Personally solely relying on code for our governance, is recipe for disaster because you cannot remove the people from governance.
And if you want to figure out who is funding all of these social media influencers to spread and attack any discussion of biological engineering technology that was outsourced to China....
Well we have people on YouTube that have been outing individuals getting paid to promote this. So actually these individuals do need to be confronted as well as they do need to be challenged by the entire community.
Like I said in one of my other replies here that they are getting paid to promote certain views.
And they're also making a deal to attack anybody who posts up anything to the contrary.
Personally I see this as just a continuation of the standard status quo of attacking anyone that shares the truth of what's really going on.
If everybody is tied up being afraid because of all the fear propaganda on the news nobody will be able to get involved with real politics or a challenge the current administration.
Which the current administration here in the United States is paid solely to promote a very narrow one-sided view of the world. Let's go Brandon is even agreed to and supported by President Biden.
Personally the only thing that's going to settle this entire situation is for the entire community to come together and start having Town Halls again.
Something like that is needed, yes - the worst thing that can happen in an open community like this which is economically tied to each other is that communication shuts down. A lot of the key stakeholders don't seem to engage at all on the blockchain verbally, yet heavily vote.. and we are left to just attempt to fill in the gaps with imagination, which doesn't really work.
Indeed, are there really no governance or steering committee meetings? Decentralized or not, any entity should have those!
Yeah, we really need some core developers or top 20 witnesses to be actively involved but I'm not aware of any that have made any moves in this direction.
Maybe it’s just the government or mark z who bought up hive early.
I think the mechanic behind hive doesn't work with higher prices.
First 10k$ posts on trending? But same content as today?
Second, the amount of HBD that gets printed should hammer down the price massive. I made a post about the exponential potential of converting if haircut should increase + potential abuse.
Besides this, what many forget, The HBD gets most likely cashed out. So there must be a buyer.
Most likely converting ( after 2 hand exchange),
So this would pressure the price.
The higher the price, the more money needs to flow in on daily basis to maintain the price.
Another counterproductive point is wallet creation. Wallets become insanely expensive with higher prices.
No RC = no wallet at some price level. Simple because 1 avg user doesn't cover X$ onboarding price +(marketing for onboarding).
I know, it's one of the " Urun spreads fud" type of comments/posts :D
But scaling is IMO everything.
10k per post? If Hive goes to 10$? Maybe. But there will be quite a selling pressure on the way to 10$.
The idea of HBD is that it is uncoupled from Hive.
I am collecting account creation tokens since months (others do too). If one needs a new account but has no RC they should just come to me. I hope one day there will be a pool or a site where one can get the first wallet for free. At least I would contribute to it.
Sure but that would be a really long and complex way to become a wallet.
IMO a wallet should have a fee, but only to protect spam. So 0,1 Hive would be enough for that. Or 0,1 HBD.
The price could maybe be a bit higher or lower. But the only method to scale on demand is pay on demand.
3 hive ( around 5$) is too much for a dapp to pay.
Pools will never happen, Blocktrades and others are against that because that would give account creation tokens a price tag. A long time ago it was a reply from him to some of my comments.
You also would increase the number of users that influence how rewards are distributed. Imagine also onboarding miners to bitcoin along with users. I can kind of understand this. I have some practical demonstration of this. After joining POB early on, with a constant creation time of 50 POB/10 minutes, I was able to make votes and vote up 80 POB a single post. Now, I can only 100% vote a post to 17 POB, as other users have joined and bought up their own stake. I'm not saying their reasoning is right, though.
The more spread out the total vote value among users, the better the decentralization. That the own vote will have then less value is natural and should be for the most part compensated by the higher Hive price. Makes more sense to me than a small number of whales who mostly vote within their circles.
Indeed, I am wondering who is supporting him?