You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Is it wrong to vote same authors over and over again on the Hive blockchain?
Yes, that’s wrong.
Allow me to disagree, and to be direct and forthright.
Hive is built on two protocols that form the foundation of the ecosystem: Proof of Stake and Proof of Brain.
In Proof of Stake, those who hold a large amount of HP (whales) can indeed vote for the same authors—provided the posts deserve it. Those with a modest HP shouldn’t always vote for the same authors.
In Proof of Brain, the distribution of votes is guided by human judgment. Curation is an act of governance: voting patterns determine which content thrives and who is rewarded. If we always vote for the same authors, we’re limiting the people who can be rewarded, and much content will never thrive.
“Of the 954 followers, I think about 5% are posting these days.” Why do you think that is? Eventually, many came to the conclusion that it’s not worth it because only a few are rewarded.
It’s no coincidence that over the past two years, the number of users has dropped dramatically. Nor is it a coincidence that in recent weeks and months, more HIVE has been sold than has remained staked.
When we vote only for our own authors, we’re undermining the ecosystem’s credibility, because we’re not respecting the essence of Proof of Brain. And when that happens, people leave and the value of HIVE drops. Several key stakeholders have already stated that this is harmful, because it hinders user retention and makes it unlikely that new users will stick around.
One of the tools that can measure the health of the ecosystem, in this sense, is ManteCurated Live
I feel apprehensive when I analyze the results of some HIVE stakeholders. In many cases, the results do not reflect what these stakeholders truly contribute to HIVE. The results do not match the passion and dedication these same stakeholders bring to HIVE. The results do not do justice to what these stakeholders represent within HIVE.
I don’t accept the argument that new content and authors don’t appear in the feeds—"that’s precisely why they don’t exist". In this post, I suggest searching directly within the communities. The feeds aren’t reliable—neither on HIVE nor on other Web2 and Web3 platforms. Relying on algorithms is a mistake.
I understand that many stakeholders, as is your case, don’t have time to discover new content and authors. I understand that it’s more comfortable to vote for the same authors.
The only way I can help is by suggesting that you follow “curated” feeds from users who take care to curate content based on diversity, breadth, and a fairer distribution of votes and rewards.
Sorry the comment got so long.
I appreciate the comment and that it brings a different perspective with valid points. Nice reference to "ManteCurated Live" tool which I checked it out and can shape some of my routine as well.
Also I would like to explore more of such “curated” feeds, can you give some examples on these or how one can discover them? Thanks!
Thanks 🤝
You have enough HP to consistently support some of your favorite authors with regular votes, but you also have the ability to reach a much wider range of users. This will result in a higher return on your curation rewards and has the potential to contribute to a healthier ecosystem.
How I look for healthy curators:
I usually check the “Most Efficient Curators” table (APR 9.25%–17%).
For users on the list, I check their ManteCurated Live score. If it’s above 75, that means they’re doing a good job curating, and I start following their curation link. (In this case, it’s mine, just to be clear. Peakd also has a “Curation History,” now off in my profile😒.)
Sometimes it’s hard to find, but 3 or 4 are enough to give us a wider variety of creators and content. I save them to my Favorites, and when I have limited time for curation, I check their curation feed first.