You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: The Stupidity of Hivewatchers
It's much better to develop tools and allow individual communities and their mods/curators to collaborate and figure out ways to mitigate things within their own boundaries and in their own terms
I would agree with this if communities were providing their own reward funds, but since the reward funds all come from the commons of Hive stakeholders, Hive stakeholders have an unavoidable interest in how rewards are paid or not paid.
I'd be all for revamping how rewards work. For example, reallocate all of the common funds to DHF, and individual communities can then make proposals for their own reward funds, which they manage as they see fit. I don't think the one common pool has ever worked very well.
(The above was not meant as a specific proposal, which would require much greater attention and detail, it was a quick idea off the top of my head how the common reward pool which has not added much value and has always been very contentious could be restructured. There are probably better ways.)
Hw's maintaining the database of abusive accounts, and having somebody managing that daily grind, is something I have not seen a viable alternative to on offer, yet.
Hive-DR has been the alternative built by 'the community', but we lost our dev at the fork and haven't really recovered from that.
We do have many of the small group of folks cut out for this type of work engaging through our discord server.
While some development is ongoing, as always, more funds would speed things up.
Bad curation is the root of this all.
Curators simply refuse to take the time to vet their votes, most are not suited to working in anti-abuse, don't have the talent nor temperament needed to face the fraudulent users' lies day after day.
I don't blame them, I'm not suited to pull the trigger on flags, either.
I think those that do take on this chore, collectively for us all, should be encouraged, but my stake is a drop in the bucket.
Hw's is not the only option, and hasn't been for a very long time.
Ganging up to improve rewards is the solution?
Better, imo, to crab bucket the governance, individually.
Let the second layer worry about tokens and their various distribution models.
The more hands holding hive the better.
You can see how the curators have fed their friends until they are fat enough to feed their's all while they collectively drove the majority of 2.4 million people away.
Plenty of accounts, lauded as 'par excellence' by the most powerful curators on the platform, with high reps and sub 2mv wallets, while those that do powerup and intend to stay are pushed off the rewards tail entirely by bad curation at the top.
20 accounts take 50+ percent of the pool, day after day, for years now.
Some accounts would be richer than god if the coin mooned.
Instead of the redshills and the bildaboogers running the planet it would be hive whales.
That isn't likely to happen, iyam.
Until it takes 1000 accounts to earn the first 50% of rewards, the coin is not nearly decentralized enough for me.
View more
We have had small curator-friendly tools developed at little to no cost.
The point is to enable the assigned curators to do what the curation initiatives or delegators expected them to do.
As for more sophisticated tools, I'm sure the stakeholders can fund the development of better algorithms through the DHF to detect certain abuses. There could be multiple people who hang out in the Hive Discord or whatever to scrutinize the feeds, etc. in the open.
The current system is broken. It's like letting the Demiurge pretend he's the Creator God of the universe.
As for rewards, yes, I do agree that some revamp needs to happen. This common pool is cursed.
View more