It seems that the content creator follows an inefficient model. It's like you have 5 rocks, one being gold, and you jump lump them all together and sell for a much marked down price. Creators never had anything like steem/hive before, so it does take awhile to click. For me it took a long time to click and it's still clicking.
We got sidetracked a bit due to bidbots, it went from tipping creators with your stake to tipping yourself with your stake. But with the new EIP, vote selling isnt a thing and we are seeing people vote other people, for better or worse.
It would be really cool to have a "curator" style front end that put the emphasis on the vision you laid out.
I'm curious, and I know you're prob tired of hearing of "tweaks" but as a content creator, how do you like the current voting system. Talks of doing what Leo did and moving to a flat curation extended window. This way, lets say a very popular author comes over and explains hive gets users to power up etc. Now he is getting a lot of auto votes, but the curators are competing so much they are voting at 3mins and ruining curations rewards for all. I think the flat curation could solve the getting shafted crackhead feeling.
I'm at a place where I'm not looking to tweak "layer 1" that much, more so moving to a new frontier called layer 2. But before I completely get my focus off of layer 1 I'd like at least one last community effort to see what can be improved. The EIP really changed this place forever, and that was really the first main community-oriented change outside of INC back in the day. I'd like to take what we learned and see if we can do it one more time as a community.
This post was more recent, again talking about consumers. I don't think many saw this one. Every time I start thinking about changes and tweaks, I look at what we have, what might be coming, and what's missing. What we have depends on consumers, what's coming depends on consumers, and what we're missing are consumers.
The problem with total freedom is when you give it to someone, they don't know what to do with it. Early on a few things clicked for me, then the thoughts morphed into something tuned, still with room to improve.
When it comes to voting, for one, I don't want to be penalized when upvoting comments. I held on to these tokens because I saw the benefits of catering to consumers early on. Drinks are free at my place. I thought there'd be a lot of competition, so offering perks to consumers would be necessary. That would lead to a positive feedback loop where other creators see and ensure they too have tokens staked in order to be competitive. Should have led to more with skin in the game resulting in less selling pressure, protecting my investment. I've never been a fan of this five minute window nonsense and the penalties. I was all for the 50/50 split because it was offering consumers more. Leo is probably taking the right stance. But as a content creator with skin in the game, voting and supporting other creators should be the last of my personal responsibilities. Can't play every position on the field all at the same time. Those going around acting like drunk referees, downvoting creators because they didn't go out and downvote, that was obnoxious behavior. Free downvotes were introduced because instances of actual abuse were running rampant and nobody wanted to do anything about it, or it cost them money. They were not to be used to place salary caps on honest creators. More on that here.
The EIP has yet to mature. Much of that has to do with Sun's interference. Many of the positive changes required more people in the mix in order to be able to see the full potential. The only problem I have now with changes is the common trend where things are changed then not pushed out to the general public to see if it worked. Improvements or the new direction isn't marketed. Instead the community shrinks, people panic, then start messing with the knobs again. The most important step is always skipped, and that's bringing the masses here. Of course, any time I say "attract more people", many automatically assume I'm talking about content creators. I swear, any time I say, "We need to attract more consumers," I'm met with, "You're right! We need to attract more creators!"
I appreciate you bringing this post to my attention, because it's a great post as far as it goes. Since it focuses on financial matters and business, that's as far as it goes, however.
That's not the most valuable feature of society. Folks don't go for a walk with the dog because it's the best way to get paid, in the long run nor this quarter. They don't eat chicken dinner because it makes them a winner. Society is vastly more important than the economy that naturally arises when societies form.
Economies are vital to societies, but they are not the source of societies, or the most important features of societies.
Hive is a society, not a business. So, I do appreciate your business interests, but feel this kind of discussion fails to address the most vital features upon which Hive dangles, which aren't financial at all.
Censorship brought both you and I here, not money. Free speech isn't money, but is far more valuable. Censorship has dramatically increased it's reach and deepened it's impact IRL in the last month, and it's being used now to crush competing platforms that have been benefiting from the suicidal bannings and censorship Big Tech has afflicted itself with. At least I read a headline from WAM to that effect today.
I expected this, and expect more of it.
Censorship can be imposed on 3Speak and Hive from without. You are highly focused on Layer 2 and Layer 1 specialization, and rightly so, but ignore Layer 0 at your peril. If folks can't get to 3Speak or Hive because of externally imposed censorship through ISPs, Domain registrars, backbone providers, and etc., or cannot flow fiat into our platforms because of Visa and payment processors censoring them, no layers above Layer 0 will matter in the least.
Censorship is going to increase it's reach and breadth. It's not going to be limited to the Big Tech platforms but will be consequentially and nominally applied to their competitors, with as fatal impact as can be managed. That means Hive, Peakd, and 3Speak will be dealt with eventually, as Josh Sigurdson said BitChute is now. Dlive and more popular platforms will be next, but they'll get to us.
I have long advocated mesh networks, or some mechanism that enables folks to route around ISPs, Domain registrars, Cloudflare, payment processors, and etc. Without it, without ensuring people can actually access the internet usefully, no matter how decentralized and censorship resistant Hive and 3Speak are internally, they won't survive Big Tech censorship.
They won't even exist to people that want to consume content there, people like you and me that seek censorship free speech. Everyone that seeks to do business outside of the Big Tech platforms at all will soon be highly motivated to ally with first movers implementing nominal solutions if BitChute falls.
The writing is on the wall.
Thanks!
Edit: I no sooner posted this than I found this when I checked my email:
Allies are forming up. Now is the time to multiply the time and effort that can be deployed to ensure Layer 0 can continue to create a suitable environment for dependent ecosystems.
This might sound ridiculous and I'll admit, it's coming straight off the top of my head.
I think the easiest (it won't be easy) way to defend ourselves from the nannies over at big tech, is to become big tech.
Big tech makes a lot of money. It doesn't stop at the 45% cut Youtube/Google takes home. When you tip on that platform, Google takes 30%. Twitch is 50/50 as well. These hefty percentages are common everywhere.
One of the easiest (it won't be easy) ways to become big tech is to dip into big tech's pockets, or turn them upside down and shake them. Take their money.
There's no rulebook dictating once you become big tech, you must adhere to the current big tech value system. Attempting to make a metric shit-ton of money here by utilizing business as a tool does not take anything away from our freedom to openly express ourselves.
The internet is a road. On Hive, we make cars. Since the first automobiles, the gas guzzlers did everything in their power to censor the electrified, keeping them off the roads for decades. Musk did not say, "Screw it. I'll just build my own roads."
I appreciate the substantive reply. I have to note that the technocrats more value control than quarterlies though. I am skeptical it's even possible to grab onto the national bank money conjuring train from where we are, and that's really the only way to compete with Big Tech AFAIK.
The Bannening is basically Big Tech hanging itself upside down and demanding BitChute take their money, which is why I expect them to slaughter BitChute and us to prevent that market share from falling out of their pockets into our wallets.
He literally did.
https://www.boringcompany.com/
Even if Musk isn't relevant (if he's a technocrat larping as a rebel/controlled opposition) the constriction of speech ongoing through technocrat collusion, and considering the national bank money conjuration scheme, leaves folks with only the two choices of subjugation or evolution of off label piggy backing onto extant infrastructure to route around centralized control until/if backbone and onramps can be independently provided.
I still haven't had time to verify WAM's assertion that BitChute is on the chopping block, but I am pretty certain that's the only way forward for technocracy. They're not going to just kick dissent off their proprietary platforms and allow competition to flourish on their proprietary internet. They pretty clearly want us locked in and under their thumb, and hemorrhage money today to do it.
The globalist reset is incepting. We need back roads or we're gonna be left with the toll roads they control. Even TCP/IP over pirate ham radio is better than having to accept technocrat censorship and blacklisting of antivaxxers without ID2020.
I am wondering if TCP/IP over smoke signals is possible. Maybe I'm too cynical?
Shifting to a linear curve makes sense in that it doesn't disproportionally favor large accounts, which is how the voting system works currently. We want the smallest accounts to feel like their vote matters to get them hooked and keep them hooked. Plus I would vote for getting rid of any sort of voting window on a post, which is exactly the way LEO is doing things. It doesn't matter when you vote, you get half your vote and the author gets the rest. It prevents autovote piling and lets people vote more on the things they like. It's more akin to a tipping system. The drawback to this change is more potential for vote selling. Also, I think we need to change the powerdown period to 4 weeks instead of 13. Also also, the DAO needs an overhaul with some kind of checks and balance system put in place. Or, at the very least we should be able to downvote proposals we don't think should be getting funded. Also also also, we should expand the top 20 witnesses to something larger in order to further decentralize things, a nice round number like 100 for example, at the least.