You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Is Hive Watcher's doing a good job?
"You cannot have those people from within the Hive network, since they would be in conflict with their interest. Since they are all stakeholders..."
I don't see any conflict of interest. Outside Hive every jury member uses fiat. Juries on Hive using it's tokens aren't any more of a conflict of interest.
Seems to me that would cause them to more diligently judge carefully their peers, zealous to both defend the innocent (to make sure they're not judged unfairly themselves if they are falsely accused) as well as get scammers and malicious parties cured or censored. That's the point of juries of peers: folks that have a vested interest in justice, not kangaroo courts or pats on the backside for hazards to the community.
No one would better be able to investigate scams and etc. than Hive members that are competent to use the features of the front ends and platform, and only in cases of actual crimes, like theft and fraud, would outside authorities be necessary to bring in. Frankly, like all insular communities, I'd prefer to handle our business in house.
By the time we get to mediation, we should have a good understanding of the facts of the matter, which a proper adjudication metric should provide appropriate guidelines to a jury to implement.
Personally, I don't think the point of using jurors is for them to be zealous. Rather, I think that because jurors are randomly selected (as I interpret your US law), they are considered a fair representation of the average citizen because they are allowed to have as little to do with the case presented to them as possible.
As I understand it, it would promote a conflict if jury members were, for example, shareholders in the company that a person accused of harming the company. So if by chance a person was selected who worked in the company or held shares in it, they would be excluded from the trial, I think.
View more
Having said all this and having talked to themarkymark in this comment thread (and others before him), I think that the witnesses don't hold themselves accountable for giving rules, since they seem to think that the so called white paper says it all.
Since the analogy of a crab bucket is used, they are more or less saying, that the so called community (each and every single individual crab) rules. That can be translated to "every one rules". But if everyone rules, then no one rules. A place cannot be ruled by everyone.
If that is believed, rules are not there. What IS there is personal individual whim, taste, opportunism, hostility, sympathy, pity.
Since the witnesses say that they cannot give any clear rules because of "decentralization" they will not give out any clear rule to which they (as well as every one else) can be held accountable. Because accountability would be something all actors could refer to. But when you have no reference and no authority, arguing and negotiating becomes futile. Every virtue signaling becomes futile.
View more
So you're saying that jury members would have no conflict whatsoever as stakeholders in a cryptocurrency with the subject matter of what would be negotiated?
I am building up a case in my mind, to follow my thoughts on this...
Let's say you were prosecuting a case in some country where some stranger to the jury was accused of spamming. The company making the accusation would be some local social media platform in Germany, for example a forum for computer games. None of the jury members would have a monetary stake in this company because the company offers no possibility of monetary participation. None of them know the senior operators of this company and have never come into contact, either directly or indirectly.
What would be negotiated would be the accusation of inadmissible spamming on the sites accessible to the public.
What is the likelihood that the individuals on the jury would be guided by a financial interest, because it is said that the operation of the platform suffers financial and reputational damage as a result of spamming? The probability would not be given. The defendant would not have this specific financial motivation either.
The jury would be asked by the accuser to take the interest of the company into account, of course. The defendend would argue that the spamming accusation is not correct, because .... and so on and so forth.
If you now take Hive as that social media platform, where every opened account requires at least some stake, and where participation and engagement with other users is highly dependent on building up stake in order to become more visible, and in order to make ones own votes more attractive, and where the financial stability of the currency is linked to its success, and where participants use downvotes in order to counteract what they think is "damaging" the platform, but nowhere it is defined and can be looked up as a central rule what exactly is to be understood by "damage", that those jury members can come in no conflict with what they think about the matter of spam, the matter of the reward pool, the matter of downvotes themselves?
I would define that as a probability to come into conflict between my interest as a hive user and the interest of another hive user, would you not?