However, how stake is wielded is determined by what incentives are given stakeholders.
I disagree with this. Incentive structures are good for predicting the average person. They are not good at predicting unique or eccentric people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is, of course, true, but financial incentives drive financial decisions, and Hive is a plutocracy that requires only 50.00001% of stake to completely control governance. Generally speaking, folks with the most substantial stake will be those that best attain it, and best manage it, and their decisions when granted unitary control of a financial asset can be counted on to exercise maximal prudence. The first rule of investing is to preserve your capital, and only then to seek to increase it. I observe that Hive management has been exercised to prevent control of governance from being acquired by more capital than extant management can bring to the table by means of presenting the aspect of a poorly performing asset. Being listed only on Upbit, a shrinking user base, and a token declining in value all discourage investment from deep pockets.
They don't prevent unique individuals with significant assets from investing, as you exemplify, but they have to date discouraged investors that could easily buy all the Hive tokens being sold from doing so and seizing control of governance as Sun did Steem. Because the extant Hive management maintain control of governance solely because of their possession of a bare majority of stake there is not another mechanism that can prevent someone or group with more money than they have from taking over governance.
Perhaps there is some other factor I am missing. Can you think of anything else that prevents control of Hive from being purchased by someone or group with deeper pockets than extant management?
I really don’t think people need to discourage deep pockets from investing in HIVE. The genesis of HIVE was mostly because someone bought in without a large stake and without community support.
I think that’s the answer to your question.
That's not an answer to my question, but disregards it. You do you.
I wanted to upvote your comment but I am low on mana. I’ve been curating some comments on my gaming post and it got a little out of hand on my upvoting 🤣
I think HIVE being a fork of Steem is the reason. The control premium of HIVE is infinite from an investment perspective. There is no amount of HIVE someone can buy to get control of the “ecosystem” in my opinion.
Ok, that at least tangentially provides relevant information, that not only is there no other metric that secures management, but that management of Hive does not exercise control over the wider ecosystem by the possession of a majority of stake. The perspective that the 'control premium of Hive is infinite...' is perfectly consilient with my understanding of how management that is exercised, as it's main goal seems to be maintenance of that control. I appreciate you coming through with an answer I could understand.