You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: The Stupidity of Hivewatchers
Communities
You say communities and I hear gangs.
Groups that exclude voices based on centrally determined 'reasons' are echo chambers.
Perfectly acceptable in the 2nd layer foodie/gardening/latte art communities, political trolls need not apply, but hive governance is better shepherded by being widely distributed, imo.
Better in the hands of the many, than in the hands of a few.
Each community will have governance, that makes it not a collective cooperative but a hierarchy.
Putting rewards into the dao and doling them out is far too centralizing, for me.
The centralized ptb have led us to here, why would giving them you guys even more control over who gets rewards governing control make things any better when this framework has failed to deliver wider adoption/distribution up to this point?
IF not failed outright, at least has failed to provide a thriving environment that welcomes newbs, real newbs, not just greedy grubbin' sockpuppets.
@penguinpablo has left, or I would quote him, but 12k daily active authors out of 2.4 million, admittedly mostly bot, accounts is a poor reflection on the hive's retention/networking abilities.
We were averaging 16k daily authors, but 4k have left the platform since then.
I can't read @arcange's chart well enough, but it clearly shows us closer to 10k than 20k.
I really would like to avoid being the crypto betamax, if that is gonna be possible.
Communities that are doing a good job*
Large stakehodlers have been determining who is worthy for a long time, how about giving the crowd a chance to determine that?
Do you maintain that centralized 'planners' can better service the needs of a crowd than the crowd themselves?
What happened to the smooth and @abit that forced an 800mv cap on the pool?
That resulted in some distribution of the coins.
Plenty of excited newbs during that run.
Absent the n2 it would have a different, but mostly similar, impact?
Not a repeat, but a rhyme?
Who can better determine sockpuppet/bot posts from real people posts?
Who can better determine who deserves rewards than the crowd receiving the posts?
I get the centralization of control while our market cap was 15m usd, that was a long time ago, times have changed, but how the crowd is managed has not.
'Communities' have flopped, except those centrally supported, accept that the crowd doesn't want them, outside the greedy grubbers.
No self respecting hivizen bows to their authority over who is deserving and who is not.
These are short, and @larkenrose's creations.
Funny how he doesn't post here anymore?
The 800 MV experiment was fine. And indeed, we haven't had n^2 or anything of the sort for years. Did it make a big difference? Not in my view. It might have made matters worse in a sense, since there is no ability to attract the true high value (not just crypto) influencers by concentrating rewards according to attention. We had some real influencers when we could concentrate by n^2. They actually drew attention to Steem. Now we have a bunch of mid-tier non-influencers posting photo and travel blogs, and Hive-centric blog posts, receiving somewhat less but still concentrated rewards, and accomplishing almost nothing.
No, you're not going to have a system where a million bot accounts (i.e. "the crowd") get to vote rewards as they like (which will, with certainly be to each other), being paid primarily by inflating away the stake of the largest stakeholders.
It's fine to have something like reddit, with equal, easily botted votes, as long as there aren't rewards. With rewards it breaks down completely.
Any commercial activity, anywhere, at any time, is run by the golden rule. Whoever is providing the gold makes the rules. There is no way out of that.
View more