If you want to reward him, feel free to send him crypto or fiat. No one can stop you from doing that, but he won't earn a dime here as long as I have stake.
I know most people have no spine or ethics or even gives a shit about principles. When someone goes around saying Hive is a scam and it is going to $0, there is no reason they should do so while earning rewards there. I could go into many other reasons as well, but this one is more than enough.
I'm not saying you are wrong about punishing Jerry specifically. Perhaps he deserves to be chased away. I'm just saying that this is not up to today's legal standards of "due process" and resembles the era of the Wild West. There is no independent "Hive Court" in which Jerry to be tried and deemed "non grata". It's basically you who judged him, found him guilty and chased him away. Not exactly a progress when compared with the "outside world".
There is no due process there is no courts, I am using my stake to influence the reward pool in a way I believe is best to the amount my stake allows.
Everyone has the same ability and it is up to them to decide where the inflation should be allocated.
Yes, and that is subpar.
How so?
In terms of governance. Sorry I was so brief, I have some issues with the latest release of Keychain.
"Due process" counts as progress on the evolutionary scale of governance systems. Ideally, when someone does things that others consider bad, there are some systems to prevent conflicts from escalating. There are clear rules of what is considered "good" / not so good / somewhat bad / very bad. A body to assess evidence. An instance where the accused can defend himself. In short, a justice system. But you know all that, if the US is such an advanced country, it's in no small part thanks to its sophisticated legal system.
It's a path of evolution that the Hive community might consider investigating.
You have all that. Rewards is a seven day process decided by the community.
@sorin.cristescu you're suggesting we have a committee to determine whether certain transactions warrant attention and addressing. This is a proof-of-brain system.
@themarkymark seems to suggest this already exists. It's called "invest and you have say." This is a pay-to-play system.
Neither is wrong. They appear to be at odds. Both have merit. They tend to be mutually exclusive.
I suggest there ought to be a consensus on which focus to choose, and run with it, one way or the other. But that would require coming up with a business model that most witnesses and whales can support.
Either that, or we've got to find a way to make both camps moderately happy -- compromise comes to mind?