You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)
there is no binding contract between the founders/operators of this blockchain and the individual users
You are absolutely correct. This is exactly what I am saying.
Since no such contract exits and never will. Consumers does not have any loyalty to the author/creators either. We can chose to vote what we like and how we like it.
I don't know what difference you make between authors and stakeholders
Everyone is a stakeholder. The difference is, how much stake is necessary to have a meaningful opinion in governance. Again the answer is subjective. There is no real number and its a sliding scale. I have seen people taking meaningful part in governance with 100K HP, and I have seen people taking no role in governance with 12M HP. But usually since this is a DPOS blockchain it is widely considered proportional to your powered up hive.
You can have a better understanding if you read the whitepaper.
What do you mean by "meaningful"?
In the context of numbers, i.e. the level of stakes, I can't derive meaningfulness. It's communicated content that provides meaning and in principle does not need a stake to motivate someone to make a suggestion or participate in the design of the platform.
But how I understand you, in other words, the higher your stake, the more weight and importance your word should have. Am I understanding you correctly? If someone with 12 M HP decides not to assert a will to shape, they could still do so at any time and have an influence. Whereas, on the other hand, if someone has far less than 100K HP, it makes no difference if they want to influence, right?
If no one has loyalty to each other, the whole thing here would be nothing more than a kind of gambling, where you just bet your chips on a whim, no matter what content you are playing with. No matter what authors write, it is not important what they write, but only that they write so that the game continues.
But I see something different. Loyalty and the formation of communities of interest are taken very seriously here, just as certain behaviour is either rewarded or punished.
The - one might say foolish - side that sees it all as great fun is not seen as funny at all, and the people who very seriously monitor behaviors and opinions seem to want to prevent the very face of Hive shown on the outside from being perceived as a gambling hall and a place of arbitrariness.
In my view, this contradicts the "we can choose what we want and how we want it." There are hundreds of etiquette posts, advice articles on voting and commenting behaviour, and a constant argument about these matters.
If it is as you say, no one would really want to spread the word that this is decentralised governance. Because of course that is not true. For me personally, I clarified the whole matter a few years ago with one of the witnesses here, who finally said that it is anything but decentralised. Basically, the marketers say something different than what's in it.
In principle, this is what could be written on the packaging:
Nobody takes seriously what is published here. It is a matter of complete arbitrariness. The rewards are neither rewards, the punishments neither punishments. No one wants to help anyone succeed, because the individual's personal blog is merely a pass-through for number shifts. All that is experienced in terms of meaning is a charge of meaning that is in truth unimportant.
I've read the paper several times back then and I bet, very few people read it. For me, that's subjective, it's not a law, it's an approach how one can look at this matter.
But do you really think, that is how the people here perceive this environment? I don't think so. Up- or Downvoting is connected to emotions drawn from the contents being published. If it'd be totally un-attached to emotion, there would be no need for either up- or downvotes.
View more