There's no point in fighting concrete, and I really don't know why you doing that. Blurt currently has all the solutions you're talking about, plus an increasingly active community and mechanisms that reward voting for content and also for content over time, which eliminates the greed factor because the voter then gains nothing.
It's incomprehensible to me that people like you want to keep digging in here instead of simply switching to Blurt.
You think Hive is a more mature and developed platform, but the truth is that 90% of all these advanced tools are open source and could be ported to Blurt in a few months. Markets and volumes, in turn, are a matter of user numbers. The more people selling and trading, the higher the volume and the more opportunities for new exchange platforms.
It's just a matter of understanding that instead of trying to smash your head into concrete, it's worth simply going around the wall ;]
This is fallacious. I destroy concrete regularly with my own manual efforts, turning sidewalks and slabs into retaining walls with a sledge hammer. Stone is far less obdurate than human will, and this metaphor is relevant particularly to institutions, because nothing is more malleable than code, law, or religion.
No, it doesn't. There isn't any mechanism to enable investors to attain ROI without deranging curation with pecuniary interest, such as HBD interest bearing savings accounts. This is a lack of prudential potential Blurt! has yet to address, IMHO. I think it's the reason substantial investment eludes the platform (although there are others as well).
There is a community of people here I have enjoyed for most of a decade. I have made many (online) friendships, learned a great deal, and many people have expressed gratitude and affection for what I have shared with them as well. If you have no sense of community and friendship that strengthens your commitment to Blurt!, whatever your actual purpose and association is remains obscure and opaque to me, because it isn't either pecuniary interest, since Blurt! has little financial capitalization for profiteers to tap into.
I don't bust concrete with my head, and I don't avoid building materials I need to make what my friends and neighbors need. Simplistic aphorisms aren't pithy if they avoid substance, and while brevity is the soul of wit, it's not adequate to convey nominal business plans that must deal with the devils in details.
You don't address the centralization of stake on Blurt! that renders it no less the at will possession of it's ruler(s) than Steem is Sun's or Hive it's ~36 whales. I wish Blurt! no ill, but absent the ability to attract investment and also to distribute stake while insulating governance from that influence - which is perhaps an unattainable goal, as wealth creates power to rule - Blurt! does not solve the problems Hive, nor Steem, have.
I appreciate you having different views, but you haven't substantially addressed specific mechanisms that shows that Blurt! resolves issues on Hive, but have merely pejoratively and dismissively implied it has, and anyone that doesn't shlep immediately to Blurt! and grovel before it's stakeholder(s) that run it are fools. That's not how to win friends and influence people, at least not me. If you do make the effort to detail specific solutions to the particular problems I have alluded to Blurt! has, I'd be interested in hearing them. Trying to imply such specifics with homilial aphorisms won't rise to that bar.
Edit: I don't understand this sentence:
There is no related detail that reveals how such mechanism(s) 'eliminate greed'.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. The concentration of capital in Blurt is reversible because there's no factor that would dramatically tip the rewards scales in favor of one group. this is just a matter of new investors. This is simply because so few people have invested in this blockchain so far, and co-funders are still holding the initial stake. As soon as new capital arrives, I guarantee a very large portion will dissipate.
On hive contrary: You yourself wrote that DV is the reason most tokens go to whales. So whether you use your head or a jackhammer, this concrete has the ability to regenerate and grow faster than you can ever pound it.
You've picked on HBD, but HBD isn't a good product at all. It's hopeless and unattractive to investors. Why? Because even 15% yields a low rate of return after subtracting dollar inflation. BTC yields better returns, and holding HBD doesn't give you the ability to decide how rewards are distributed. In the case of increases in the Hive token, those who invested in HBD lose out compared to those who invested in Hive.
Secondly, your solution of removing the curation reward is simply stupid and removes many functionalities of the blockchain itself that can be used to create and fund various good applications, while solving nothing. Investors will simply start creating post farms much more frequently than before to continue reaping 100%.
Besides, hardly anyone votes for the reward on Blurt, and it shows. The problem with the curation reward on Hive stems again from the DV: people who care about the curation reward are afraid to vote for content that isn't a "sure thing," meaning content that has a 99% chance of not being downvoted, and that's why you see artificiality in the voting. This artificiality is minimized if the DV disappears. Second problem with it is a Reward curve. On blurt they planning to remove it.
But okay, if you want to bang your head against a self-healing wall, then go ahead. Remember, however, that you won't achieve anything here, because every step forward you take is two steps of concrete.
There are other reasons for artificially increasing engagement, and Blurt! principals seemingly have acted for those reasons. Also, it's not the main problem with curation rewards, as @holozor recently proved to me here.