I wasn't around back in those days, but I understand your point of view. I want to see Hive thrive and I like to see builders like @powerpaul and yourself building projects on the chain.
For sure, it's just gotta come from speculation and actions of tokens and projects. Let's take my own project for instance, people gotta
believe zing may outperform hive or at least be on par
even if it doesn't outperform it brings additional value to hive
trust the person running it and that he has the best intentions for the token and layer one investment of everyone else in mind
people can then diverify delegations, support, etc towards many projects. I've bought a lot of $woo for instance cause I thought it'd do good for hive, I liked the main idea and concept and what it does for wrestlers. Is it fair that that project receives less delegations than say cryptocompany just because woo doesn't allow delegators and ingame token earners to buy hive votes by burning woo?
Do you think the people who undelegated the project after the changes of not selling more votes had the best intentions with the project when they delegated or did they do it just for the extra (self)vote?
Things like this have to be on an even playing field or else some projects get an advantage over others at the cost of greedy delegators who will unfairly outperform author rewards compared to those not being involved. Same with the project.
If woo and zing both have the same chance of becoming a successful project on hive same as cryptocompany, why shouldn't they all stand the same chance at receiving delegations? Why should one get more because they guarantee votes to delegators no matter if they post about the project or not.
That's the thing we need to make fair and get in the way of when we see it being misused. If cryptocompany is a good investment opportunity in and of itself I'm all for everyone supporting it, it just can't make hive curation the forefront and one of the main reasons to support it.
For sure, it's just gotta come from speculation and actions of tokens and projects. Let's take my own project for instance, people gotta
believe zing may outperform hive or at least be on par
even if it doesn't outperform it brings additional value to hive
trust the person running it and that he has the best intentions for the token and layer one investment of everyone else in mind
people can then diverify delegations, support, etc towards many projects. I've bought a lot of $woo for instance cause I thought it'd do good for hive, I liked the main idea and concept and what it does for wrestlers. Is it fair that that project receives less delegations than say cryptocompany just because woo doesn't allow delegators and ingame token earners to buy hive votes by burning woo?
Do you think the people who undelegated the project after the changes of not selling more votes had the best intentions with the project when they delegated or did they do it just for the extra (self)vote?
Things like this have to be on an even playing field or else some projects get an advantage over others at the cost of greedy delegators who will unfairly outperform author rewards compared to those not being involved. Same with the project.
If woo and zing both have the same chance of becoming a successful project on hive same as cryptocompany, why shouldn't they all stand the same chance at receiving delegations? Why should one get more because they guarantee votes to delegators no matter if they post about the project or not.
That's the thing we need to make fair and get in the way of when we see it being misused. If cryptocompany is a good investment opportunity in and of itself I'm all for everyone supporting it, it just can't make hive curation the forefront and one of the main reasons to support it.