I've talked about one of these in the past, the reblogrewarder, but if you don't wanna go and read a 1+ year old post right now, here's a quick rundown:
A service that counts the collective active stake that follows an account.
When that account reblogs a post, it takes a snapshot of the current pending rewards at reblog.
If the post ends up getting more rewards from active accounts following the reblogger, it counts these as points towards the reblogger.
If author has beneficiaries sent to "@reblogrewarder" - similar to @commentrewarder, it would give a % of those rewards to the reblogger.
This means that the author is still in charge of how much rewards they wanna forfeit towards incentivized reblogging. The reblogger's own vote doesn't count to avoid abuse. If the rebloggers start spamming, they may risk getting unfollowed. The idea is basically to reward good reblogs and remind people that reblogging is a valuable thing we may often forget to use and if used well could direct a lot of value to where it is deserving - making reblog curation more powerful for those doing it well.
The other idea is a forever staked account, this could be done with multisig of many large stakeholders who'll be around for a long time, but doesn't matter much if they will or won't be as the idea is that this account will never unstake the rewards it generate.
How is this different from burnposts or hbdstabilizer posts? Well, the difference is that this account would also compete with active curation rewards vs just author rewards. It could also curate itself, although the curation would yet to be determined how it's done or evolve over time.
How to fund this account?
Simple comment rewards similar to hbdstabilizer and burn posts could work - or:
accepting stake/delegations while offering the stakers and delegators some power in who they vote and don't vote, with a curation team to maintain curation principles and requirements in place. Compared to some of the current projects that may be doing the same thing, there'd be more oversight on who's "buying" votes for who and what content. But what makes this project unique is that there's a provable way that this account will never randomly "quit" or unstake all the rewards it has received so far. It'll instead continue to curate or not curate and maintain an active stake in the future of inflation, making the curation rewards pool more competitive and taking a larger and larger share of it.
These are just examples, it could simply also just vote on hbdstabilizer or non-curation while growing its share in curation rewards over time.
Anyway, would appreciate some thoughts on these couple ideas, and maybe someone who'd be interested in working on them as I think I may have overstayed my welcome towards other devs to do things for free or swamping them with ideas. :P
I like the idea.
I think reblogging as a feature now is next to useless.
Something that I would be worried about, are accounts that just reblog every post. Some exist already and they are incredibly annoying, if you follow the account. They reblog every one of their followers and load your feed with so much noise that they bury your own followers posts. I followed accounts like that and muted them after a day bc of how annoying that was.
Something that should be added to the reblogging feature, regardless if your idea is added or not, is a limit to the amount of reblogs a person can do. I'd limit it to one reblog per day myself, maybe two lol.
Reblogging to me should be: "this post is so good that I have to be the first one to introduce it to my friends," NOT "I'm going to reblog every post so I can end up in every hive accounts notifications and hopefully they will give me an upvote"
Yeah, some restrictions and gamification could be applied to it, since it's all handled by us (the service) and not the blockchain, we could go quite crazy with it if resources allow. Such as limiting the amount of reblog's we'd count per day or let's say the first one has a higher weight to it than the second one in terms of how much rewards you can get, etc.
Okay I see. That makes sense
Only one thing I think we can improve is;
Instead of rewarding every reblog, only reward reblogs that meet criteria:
Reblogger has minimum stake (to show they are serious to be in Hive for long term)
Reblogger has consistent curation history
Reblogger’s followers are active voters, not dead accounts
Reblogger only earns if the reblog brings new voters to the post (I know it's hard to track but need one person to keep track on this)
What do you think?
Yeah I think there'd need to be certain requirements such as this because I figure the calculating of "how much stake do followers of every account reblogging have" may put quite some activity on API's.
and yes, I mentioned in the post as well, only count active followers!
Good points overall!
I do apologize I do miss some things when I read hehe. Thanks for the honesty. Good luck with the project!
The reblogger has quite a small window, less than 24 hours to reblog, and people are going to scan all posts that use this service and reblog it.
It's just like many do for comment rewarder. I noticed when I used comment rewarder, I get a lot more comments (including many meh and non genuine ones) and they stopped when I stopped using it. I figured it wasn't worth it.
It's so sad that there's always a bunch of people that be willing abuse and spoil things for everyone else whenever there's a new project with good intent
I don't think there's anything "too wrong" with people putting in the extra effort to write a comment if they know there might be extra rewards on the table than what the author can provide with an upvote, which for 99% of authors is usually nil. But yes, the spammy ones that didn't even read or have nothing of value to add shouldn't get rewarded so it's kind of up to the authors to use it well too, which i've noticed many don't care about to do when using the service some times.
I think to make it fair the rewards should be based on how many people the reblod reach and eventually re-reblogs, but im not sure if it can be done... I like the idea because reblog are very useful, I often get to see stuff from people I follow who reblog
Reblogs thing need more filters to prevent spamming because that is is easy to do so.
About comments, a long term never unstaked account and voluntary staking and funding to this account including delegation will be great idea. In this ecosystem there are so many schemes for blog post, very little on engagement things, glad that someone like you spearheading this movement at an individual capacity.
I generally like the idea of incentives for reblogs as it seems it's an underutilized feature. However, me being a user of Ecency (as I'm mostly on mobile), I don't know how to change the beneficiaries of my posts and comments, so I don't know if I'd be using it like that. It also might be difficult to attribute upvotes to a particular account if an upvoter follows multiple reblogging accounts. You'd probably do it based on reblogging time which might not be the most accurate.
The other idea with the permanently staked account I'm not sure I understand. I'm generally in favor of anything that can drive value to HIVE, but I'm not entirely sure how that's done by shifting around inflation rewards, but that's probably related to my ignorance.
1 Click the settings icon, top left
2 Add beneficiary - author % reduces automatically, as you add them.
!BBH
Didn't know about @ecency not making it easy to set beneficiaries on posts, maybe something they can add.
The other idea is basically an account that would forever stay staked and compared to hbdstabilizer or burn posts, it would start taking a share of the curation rewards pool vs just author rewards pool like the others do. You can imagine that if people like the idea, send it hive for votes towards deserving authors or delegate to it for votes or generally upvote it's comments/posts to let it grow cause they think it's doing a good job curating/etc, the account would keep growing and growing over the 10+ years we have left of inflation until it drops and stays at 0.5% annually. It could become a big account that provably can't be unstaked and keeps taking a large pie of the curation rewards vs other stakeholders.
I wasn't really aware of what you're telling us. I find it interesting. What would it be like to work on it? I'm asking to see if there's any possibility I could offer my help.
Unless you're a dev knowledgable with hive I don't think there's too much you can help with at this point unfortunately!
Thank you for the clear update. I just reactivated my account and this means a lot for me.
Welcome back!
By implementing criteria for rebloggers, I think we can create a more engaged environment that truly values quality contributions.
This project you're imagining is a great one it I can become a reality. Rebloging is something in Hive that is been overlooked. With this now it will be taken to limelight.
🫂
Honestly I appreciate you so much for bringing up and looking out for avenues to reward consistency on the chain, getting rewards for reblogging is a very good idea.
I don't have a suggestion for now, but I'm following up with quality suggestions on the comment section.
It feels good to see that ones effort and time is appreciated and rewarded. Reblogging might seem a simple task but most spend time to read a post before they reblog to ensure they share the idea in the post. Then too comments that follows. So I feel it's fine to give reward for doing so especially comment's with meaning relating to the subject matter.
Really appreciate the thinking here. Both ideas (really) push the ecosystem to rethink how curation and long-term incentives actually work.
Three questions come to mind:
How do we reward meaningful reblogs without amplifying noise or creating more feed clutter?
For a forever-staked account, what governance guardrails keep long-term influence from becoming too centralised?
If these models shift how curation power flows, who gains agency and who risks losing it / and is that change healthy for the network over time?
Greetings, these two ideas or projects seem good to me from different points of view, as does the @commentrewarder, which is a very good option to incentivize and reward those who visit our posts. I consider reblogs equally necessary because a reblogged post has a high probability of being seen, and that's good for encouraging participation. If the author decides to use the benefit and reward, that's their decision. I, personally, would use it and promote it. Reblogs have helped me many times, and I'm currently helping small users with my reblogs. Rewarding effective reblogs is wonderful, and I would say very useful as long as the objective is achieved; the reward is justified.
Regarding permanent staking, I think it's very positive if those in charge have a broad vision of curation and those who direct the votes assume the ethical responsibility that it entails. It would become a great project if it's carried out responsibly and in a balanced way.
In addition, it would be very beneficial for the platform's economy, without the fear that the whale might disappear or decide to leave someday. Without a doubt, it's a great project, and it would be fantastic if others joined in.
Reblogrewarder could be a great idea to encourage reblogging. It could work like Commentrewarder, where within a time limit of less than seven days, a percentage of the rewards are given to accounts that reblog.
However, I believe that the author of the post should be able to decide who benefits, with certain requirements. For example, with commentrewarder, the author likes the comments to select them.
Perhaps users who reblog the post should show activity on their account or reblog constantly to be valid.
Greetings, my friend. I agree with both of your ideas because they both benefit the platform and its users. I will fully support them if they are completely fair and well-directed. I think they are excellent.