You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Is This Hive's Verified Check Mark?
Any large stakeholder stepping in to crush someone with thousands of adoring, and paying, fans, is a moron.
They can pay to write "moron" on their forehead.
A long time ago under another post where I wasted time talking about this stuff, I suggested there should be a professional way to appeal, like writing a proposal, and similar to the proposal system already in place. Community can look into cases of potential menaces, and decide if they should have their downvote function muted temporarily.
I don't see how forcing people to pay for some superficial nonsense solves current potential issues. "Pay to win" reminds me of bidbots and that was a total disaster this entire concept was lucky to recover from.
Impressed?
And damn, Hive is decentralized, with many apps/dapps providing services of all kinds. Who, is getting paid for these checkmarks, and why? And there's nothing really stopping anyone from moving forward with this, applying whatever rules and systems they want for their own frontend. No need to convince people or force everyone. If it's the perfect idea, just go do it.
Here's an example of Hive, without downvotes or the rep score, if that's your thing: https://www.vybrainium.com/
*and pardon my edits here as well, simply didn't have time to focus on one thing today. Trying to do important things and got this on the side...
I consider your intro sentence irrelevant, afaik Hive has one contect creator with thousand adoring semi-paying fans. You do not need reputation score to find out who that is. My apologies if there are two or three of them.
Please TLI5 to explain the forcing part. I thought we agreed noone should care for a checkmark. We seem to disagree on caring for the reputation score. Your signals are mixed - you called it decent and then observed you are not forced to follow it so I assume you chose to follow it. Good for you. Still, reputation score is a superficial nonsense to lot of people. Paid checkmark is relevant to lot of people as well. French bread and toast bread. Subjectively, you may like one, both or none, but you have to accept that both are bread.
No, thanks. Blurt is not my thing.
My thing is Hive with a symmetrical upvote/downvote structure. I do not see it happening on this chain but I enjoy patiently explaining the concept to anyone who does not understand the in-built difference within the current system.
My quick understanding of VYB is: Let's have Hive.blog that displays posts from negative reputation users and display rewards in our beloved yet worthless token. Well, that achieves nothing. That just pretends to run a marketplace by your rules but in fact it is just a filtered footage of the actual marketplace run by Hive rulebook and all parties pictured acting according to Hive standards.
If I am successful in explaining the superiority of the alternative downvote rulebook, the first conclusion to make is understanding no frontend to Hive delivers the solution. The UV/DV data there is irrelevant.
The essence is: Now that you have casted your upvote/downvote on Hive chain, you need to tell us whether you genuinely think the post was good or not.
Hive DAO that incentivises accounts to upvote/downvote certain way. You need a fund generating a relevant prizepool to both (1) make users cast a second ballot AND (2) incentivise content creators to keep posting even after their base layer rewards get crippled.
Even though I laughed at Blurt's rulebook, I honestly do not see alternative to forking out and compete with Hive if anyone wants to live by the alternative rulebook. All those Hive-Engine tokens addressing the issue are just the latter part of bread and games.
Hive experience just made me appreciate paywall models where noone pretends that free access to quality content is a human right.
View more