You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Ganging up to improve rewards is the solution?
I don't view the idea I described as ganging up, I view it as decentralizing the reward pool to the community level. Communities that are doing a good job* can pitch to Hive stakeholders to be subsidized to have a larger pool to administer among their members. Those who don't want to do that can still operate entirely as they like with second layer tokens alone.
* Good job meaning things such as active and growing user base, attracting attention and acclaim from outside Hive, not being overrun with spam and abuse, positive SEO stats, energizing real world Hive-related or Hive-sponsored activities and events, etc. This will all be compelling to get subsidized by Hive stakeholders and when aggregated to the community level are more feasible to scrutinize and be reasonably resistant to abuse.
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
themyou guys even more control over who getsrewardsgoverning 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.
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?
View more