Some of y'all may be aware of my ongoing disagreement with one of Hive's top witnesses and, based on the nature of our contention, I feel this needs to be said...
Your upvotes are NOT philanthropy!
I know this may seem counterintuitive with crowd-funding projects like @fundition in this space but hear me out.
Imagine if you will what our platform would become if it were nothing but digital panhandling and sob stories. This would effectively undermine curation, the process through which the value of the contribution to the network is appraised.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that there are people in need and we should look for ways to help them but payment via inflation (through the reward pool) is not an efficient mechanism for doing so. For example, the post may be lackluster and then be downvoted.
This may elicit a kneejerk response from those that don't understand the rationale behind negative curation but, if the content was lacking in internal substance or external activity to benefit the chain, the downvote is thus the rational response.
Some of you may recall the dimimp debacle. This one was a upvote philanthropist but did not seem to understand that this, when done overtly in the manner he had, is like opening up a can of salmon in a room full of cats.
Perhaps, not the most appropriate analogy for people and their struggles but, if you research the matter, you find it to be apt.
All one has to do really is perform a query using @good-karma's hivesearcher utility to understand the sort of content that results despite the good intentions.
https://hivesearcher.com/search?q=Dimimp
This isn't however the only type of upvote philanthropy I would like to address. There is another train of thought that supposes any votes not for one's self are somehow an act of altruism. I do believe there may be an ideological overlap for those that have seen votes as an asset to sell that share this proclivity which comes as no surprise.
They view curating and voting others as "giving away money" rather than rewarding quality and/or value. This seems to be a mode of what I would call ego-driven curation in lieu of content or contribution driven.
There is nothing wrong about feeling good about doing the right thing (that is the thing that is positive for the chain on the macro scale) but I do have difference with those that think they deserve a proverbial cookie or high praise for it.
When I was in the Marine Corps, I was taught to do the right thing... even when nobody is looking. That being said, we could very well just upvote ourselves and our alts ad infinitum if our focus is merely the accumulation of HP but can imagine how droll of a place this would be? As you have probably heard a million times by now, nevertheless it is their stake and they will do with it what they will.
But isn't it much better to upvote others for a job well done, friends, strangers, and even our enemies as an exhibit of our willingness to come together despite personal differences. It may seem absurd to upvote people that dislike you but perhaps I will make it a point to do so from time to time.
I will do so starting today
I will quote a religious text for my conclusion. To they that are of the world, such activity may perplex, confound, or bring about further contempt... But that's not your problem. It's theirs.
Luke 6:27-28 KJVS
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, [28] Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
May we be reminded to, with incentive or not, to do good for good's sake. Thank you!
This post was created using the @ecency Mobile Android App.
They also have a referral program that promotes users to onboard to our great chain. Sign ups using my referral linkusing my link are appreciated.
Ditch Partiko and get eCency today!
| PlayStore - Android | Windows, Mac, Linux |
|---|---|
 |  |
| AppStore - iOS | Web |
 |  |
Voting just influences the rewards distribution, but there are many motives for deciding what you vote on. Should it matter? We have downvotes if we think it is not justified, but we do not necessarily know the relationship between the voter and votee. If it really is votes for trash then go for it. I mostly vote manually so that my votes go to what I think is good, but I may favour some friends more than those I don't know. That is human nature. The important thing is to use your votes, preferably having seen the post.
For now Hive is a pretty small club with various communities. If it ever gets to millions then the dynamics will change.
True. Eyes on curation is what makes the platform better so hopefully everybody tries to put in their fare share of it.
The tipping mechanism on peakd is perfect for philanthropy. The reward pool should be allocated to the best content that lifts up the platform.
!discovery 25
it is a really broad discourse, being rational, when personal experiences, sensations, emotions can be included in posts, evaluating them in a rational way is almost impossible.
For example, a wedding photo with a $ 50 reward would be excessive, but how can we value a sentiment?
Having guidelines is certainly helpful, but in the end it will only be the reasoning of the people who will vote to be able to give the right value to the post.
Concur. It is not as though meaningful curation can be reduced to an algorithm but such may be able to assist. Without a human heart informing the decisions based on year of experiences and resulting values, it would in my opinion be an empty endeavor.
I did intend my post being a diatribe or against person's valuing content based on the attributes of the content itself. I see nothing wrong with that. Instead, my critique of particular motives for voting that may very well be agnostic to the substance of the content. (E.g. the Ego driven approach)
This is why I strongly vilify curation rewards, as they create an incentive to replace curation with financial manipulation. @blocktrades recent post recommending decreasing curation rewards did improve my understanding of the need for investors for a mechanism producing ROI, but @edicted has proposed a far superior mechanism for that purpose which does not degrade curation.
I've never been against ROI or profits. I've always been against profiteering that harms society, or your preferred term, the chain. Curation rewards terribly degrade actual curation, and we've suffered long the consequences of that on chain.
Savings accounts as suggested by @edicted seem to me a much better mechanism for investors to grow their stakes while allowing human society to value posts per their human values.
Thanks!
Aka the "'I'm giving away money' by actually curating" type of people.
If one is actually engaging in meaningful curation, this implies the other party contributed something.
The connotations of "giving away" suggests one party received something for nothing and in that reasoning lies the fundamental difference in the interpretation.
I mean if it were that way. It would certainly make more sense semantically to call it the donation pool.
I think that is the direction sort of that whaleshares went. Have you seen how things were going over there? It's been ages since I claimed my tip balance.
To simplify this, let's make the proper distinctions between author and curation rewards. For purposes of this discussion, let's focus on the former first.
In the name itself, it is a reward for authorship whoever how we use it has evolved beyond that such was the case w projects such as Utopian, which adds additional utility to that functionality in rewarding off chain development while the DAO was but a glimmer in the whales' eyes.
But, you see, in either case, the reward is not for nothing but to reward some form of activity.
Personally i totally agree on the fact of resizing the value of certain posts, but very often it is precisely those posts that we see in trend that need resizing, and we're aware that those posts can only get those votes thanks to certain whales. How can we match the right rewards to the great whales' hunger for curation?
without considering the fact, that it is enough to be friends with two or three right people, to have excellent rewards on every post. At that point you should review the private ownership of your tokens ... in short, you know what I mean
However, I am always available to cooperate.
amen to that, I vote for whoever I damn well want to and manually curate, very savvy post sir
Yep start helping out your fellow man and next thing you know this community is an amazing place.
All the help and support I got during my puppy fundraiser definitely helped us.
Which I would like to say thank you to all the amazing people that donated.
If you created a meaningful puppy fundraiser, I support that 100%. It only becomes a problem when we accommodate empty vote begging if you know what I mean.
Yeah I totally fakes my service dog dieing for votes.
Wow. Insensitive comment of the year.
Sorry you took it that way but that is not what I meant ✌️
I understand upvoting based on rational valuation instead of good will and I agree with that. Negative curation can become a bit more tricky. What if you downvote someone because of blatant abuse by that person, but then in response such a person reacts badly by downvoting all of your quality well though out content. How do we tackle retaliation downvoting?
Blacklists, which already exist in some form, are step towards the right solution.
Good answer. It's great when we are able to support others in very real ways with our votes but there will always be they that choose to take advantage of good will while not contributing to the platform. May our votes bring excellence to Hive!
The more people shift their mindset to Hive being primarily 'creativity through interaction' and 'financial incentive' second, instead of the other way around, the better the platform will get. Even I'm not totally there yet, but getting closer post by post, day by day.
Thanks for mentioning Ecency. Kindly join our Discord or Telegram channels to learn more about Ecency, don't miss our amazing updates.
Follow @ecency as well!
This post was shared and voted inside the discord by the curators team of discovery-it
Join our community! hive-193212
Discovery-it is also a Witness, vote for us here
Delegate to us for passive income. Check our 80% fee-back Program
Congratulations @anthonyadavisii! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPYay!
Your post has been boosted with Ecency Points. Keep up the good work!
Dear reader, Install Android: https://android.ecency.com, iOS: https://ios.ecency.com mobile app or desktop app for Windows, Mac, Linux: https://desktop.ecency.com
Learn more: https://ecency.com
Join our discord: https://discord.me/ecency
Good job brother
Yes, it's a fine line to walk and I am a hard learner at times so have dealt with my fair share of rending.
Often it takes time for the Matthew 7:15, Matthew 23:27-28 types of people to bare their teeth.