Global Reward Pool: All HIVE stakeholders share a single reward-pool and upvote/downvote to determine how it's distributed, creating conflict & drama along the way, making it a difficult flora for onboarding.
Individual Reward Pool: All HIVE stakeholders have their own reward-pool, where the decision how it's spent or if it's spent at all on other people (otherwise it's simply token-based inflation to the stakeholder) is only determined by the stakeholder. No downvotes. No self-votes. No "gaming-the-system". No abuse.
Implementation Example: Ben has 10k HIVE and gets 5 HIVE staking-rewards per day at 100% reward-pool percentage. Every day, the reward-pool is being reset to 100% and the staking-rewards are being paid out.
Since Ben gave some votes/tips/donations and reduced his percentage to 70%, he only gets 3.5 HIVE (5 * 0.7 HIVE), while the other 1.5 HIVE is being distributed to the other people.
I like the idea.
Also the publish0x way of tipping looks really cool.
You have X number of votes per day, you should give to other at least 20% of the power.
But I would prefer something simpler, I think we should really change the "POWER UP" name to staking. Everyone in crypto knows what STAKING is. And then yes, you get x% of the rewards regardless of how good you are discovering content.
Regardless of the name, it should be more straightforward for people to make money with their HIVE. Expecting exchanges to power-up their stake and delegate it to 3rd party curation service is ludicrous.
Agree 100%.
At least if we can make Hive Protocol less of these things then we can move forward together faster
I would probably support anything that'll move us forward.
Status quo is killing me. The system doesn't have to be complicated to work.
What do yo think about Reddit's awards?
That's how it could work on an interface level. Just put thresholds on percentages and combine those with awards or smth else.
I think we have bigger problems than this. We need to get people actually using Hive as we are failing at that. They are not holding back due to esoteric issues of rewards distribution. First they need to hear about it and when they join we need votes going to those who add value. Just supporting the old guard will get us nowhere.
Completely agree with you on that.
Whales should be looking into supporting more new people and also I think for the platform will be great if all users keep their stakes/rewards so they can bring more value to their friends and followers.
I observations so far is that many people have been supported from Whales from more then year or two and they barely hold any Hive at all, just selling all of it to the exchange to make living from it by doing 1 vlog or a blog, as for vloggers I’ve noticed that many girls are just support for that and again none of them hold any Hive to bring value back in the system.
Namaste 🙏
I believe there are some other interests under the hood.
Self-interest does not serve Hive well. Without growth it will struggle.
Apps will not want to deal with toxicity and downvotes.
Any system allowing for anonymity will have toxic users as they can hide behind their keyboards. Downvotes can be abused, but we need them to make abuse less profitable. It's more about perception and understanding that Hive is not like centralised platforms.
Will not work.
ofc it will
Not sure why you’re asking, it’s a fight you seem to be winning...these 135 words took twenty bucks worth out of the pool.
And?
The only difference that I see on your proposal with the current system is the removal of downvotes. In the current system if you setup several alt-accounts and only vote on them you are essentially paying yourself your share of the reward pool. With "Individual Reward Pools" the incentive shifts from farming with posts to farming with stake without providing any useful work in exchange to the network.
Downvoting stops (or rather mitigates) none useful farming of the reward pool. Removing it institutionalizes self-vote farming by converting it to farming by staking...the network would feel a lot more ponzi-esc (if that is even a word).
I am not saying that removing the reward pool would be a bad thing in and of itself but something of value has to be given to the network in exchange for a portion of the block rewards.
Ah, some common sense - at last!
I think we should immediately reduce all inflation by 50%. Also, we can take away that 10% going to the Hive Proposal System (DAO) funding when we decided how to put the 65million Hive into it (this can probably cover it for several years). We can give the 10% to SP holders in the meantime. It can be recovered from the reward pool or whatever later when necessary.
I just feel that those in favor of reduced inflation have practically no voice. But it kinda makes sense given people are used to governments and public spending being out of control in nations...so why not Hive, too?
I agree, at least we need to burn downvoted rewards instead of returning them to the reward pool. Also, witness rewards are too high (top witnesses making 2k/month, even while the price of running servers (primary, backup, seed node) is less than 500$/month).
Also, DAO will get over 83M HIVE in the next few years. If funds are converted in 10 years, it's still almost 23k HIVE/day. We could burn almost 1/3 of the supply!
No, thanks. Stop fiddling with incentives. That's the part that works. That's not what's holding Hive back.
So, what's holding Hive back then?
I think lack of more community features is the number 1 thing. Give communities more features, more abilities to set up their home however they want it to work and look. Then communities will have the ability to also play with rewards and tweak how rewards are distributed so as to work well for the particular community. This needn't necessarily depend on SMTs, a lot of it can be done now, I think.
Talk to communities and they will tell you what features they need to grow their community and attract new people. Try it and see! They will tell you what they need.
Wouldn't that just kill off blogging? Why would anyone vote for anyone? And thus why would anyone write anything?
I'm not saying that would necessarily be a bad thing btw.
Maybe we should try getting rid of the 5 minute curation penalty first? See how that affects distribution of rewards. It would at least be interesting to try first!
Indeed, this is something that we need to try: remove the 5 min curation penalty. It could go either way, but definitely we should test it!
First of all, the new mechanism would have to be separated from the classical "voting" or at least you should be able to "like" something, without giving it rewards.
Blogging will obviously not be killed, because the incentive is still there: a stakeholder on Hive could decide that he/she wants to have less inflationary revenue (as he/she already has a big stake & wants to see it grow in value) and instead gives some of it away; so the bloggers still want to participate in the ecosystem. The only difference is where it comes from: the global reward pool or the individual reward pool.
The outcome will be an even bigger screw for human curators and a big win for automatization, which I'm pretty sure 70%+ of Hive voting is running on.
Instead, curation would be removed altogether with the introduction of individual rewards pool; this would also get rid of the need for self-voting or the need to police the reward-pool; which is a big onboarding killer IMO. Also, who's policing those who are policing the system?
Personally, I don't think it's anybody's business who I want to reward or why. Obviously, in an open system where we all take from the common goods, there need to be ways to protect it; but we've clearly seen that this will always end in drama - just take a look at @cryptofinally.
I still don't see why the average stakeholder would give any of their potential value to anyone else. There might be a few out there who would try, but most would simply take all the rewards for themselves. Which would make it something like this:
https://hive.blog/steem/@tarazkp/locking-stake-for-100-passive-income-improving-content-helping-apps
TL;DR?
The idea has legs, but it isn't going to likely get traction nor be a smooth transition if implemented. There is a lot of resistance to this kind of thing by anyone without stake. Which is understandable based on the set expectations of the platform - perhaps this is a discussion better suited when there are native SMTs?
I like the idea that new system would reduce the 'negative influence' of Whales without the need to police them - that would be welcomed by me.
It's just a very large change, difficult to get my head around!
To build a good layer 2 and a variety of Dapp's, we need to be able to reward hive for activities that are not "blogging"
I think we're working towards that with side-tokenisation.
i don't agree
the side-tokens on a centralized server
with a lack of development
seem like just a 1% tax on the community
But I hope I am wrong and you are right!
What about actually using our traffic and views to generate ad revenues in order to buyback tokens and keep the price at least flat?
Such as $BAT is doing or @leofinance.
This would make sense from an economic point of view
On a 2nd layer, sure. I'm referring here to the 1st layer, the HIVE blockchain.
Sure, but we might have to change the 1st layer because the 2nd layer is not generating enough buying pressure.
So if we manage to get buying pressure (from ads, sponsored posts...) we could maybe keep the 1st layer as it is.
Just a thought. Thanks for your answer 😀
I was not referring to any frontend; that's not the concern of HIVE. The concern of the blockchain is to provide a base that others can build upon and I don't think that a global rewards pool will have the capacity to reach a community beyond niche-level.
Either we remove it completely or change it to smth like "individual-rewards pool"; as I personally think that tipping without it coming directly from your own balance is a cool idea and earning 1st layer inflation from your staked tokens is always a good argument pro-staking.
Who is running the hive.blog site at the moment. I have been stressing since the start that we need buy pressure against the token. If ads con be integrated onto a community interface like that and a buy/burn programme to go with it that will be a start.
Apps, tokens and users will be the main driver over the long term but we need to survive long enough and have a token price high enough to get there.
If we get the price we get the users. Then more users will raise the price. Ads are a good place to start.
I think @blocktrades team is running it.
The buy-back idea is pretty smart, but IMO it's really just the cherry on top.
A temporary measure more than anything really. To attract more users and developers we will need a higher token price as our user base has shrank since the split and has shrank since the bear market.
As a community we don't have the buy pressure to match the inflation of hive without more apps,users and investors which I do think that we will see in the long term if we can keep growing for the next few years.
My main fear is that as the price slips further we will lose more people and be seen as a less viable option to join regardless of how strong the blockchain itself is in terms of tech and ability.
Less users means more sell pressure and its a vicious cycle to break. Think of how good an advertisement it would be to make a weekly or monthly announcement about buying 20k hive from the market. Show people where the value comes from and get them interested. @leofinance have been doing it very well and BAT are increasing their buy every month.
Don't let fear hold you back. People will not abandon Hive because of missing rewards.
People will abandon the chain due to a lower token price. We have seen that consistently over the years. If there is more to be made elsewhere, they will move. Unless there is something more than profit to be had by using the chain then they will stay or go depending on token price. People leave very fast due to not being seen in terms of voting and engagement as a lot of the larger stakeholders tend to not be very active on the chain itself but autovote the same circle or delegate out. Which is fine in itself but doesn't help the platforms.
It is far easier to retain existing users than to onboard new ones and yet we have seen a constant talent drain over the past two years only fueled by a toxic culture from a minority of users.
While some of our witnesses do great work behind the scenes and have HIVE running brilliantly, there always seems to be an under appreciation for user experience and non technical details. At the end of the day if we have 1000 apps serving 10 million users. None those users are going to care how reward distribution works or what is happening on the back end. They just want a good experience and an interesting place to pass the time.
Businesses want a functional model to build and attract users. Apps want simple and cheap platforms to get started. I appreciate that the back end of hive is very important to all of this but i would really rather see more time and effort put into the other side of things as well.
If you have a way to spread out distribution, cut out spam, cut out downvote attacks and still ensure that people are staying active then I would be very willing to listen but giving people their own reward pool will only encourage greed and selfishness.
Until then I would love to see more effort put into the actual user experience and trying to drive growth before the next bull run. Get us into the right position to take advantage of a new wave of interest in crypto.
This, yeah.
Do you mean like Whaleshares where you get a daily reward that you can decide to distribute as you see fit?
I don't see a reason to take anything whaleshares did as a way of determining whether that idea is successful. Would you say social media is failing because MySpace failed? Of course not. 😄
But it is sort of like whaleshares, right? We can certainly look to them as lessons learned.
No.
What's the differences?
As a past usr of WLS, this just feels like WLS with extra steps. You can see how they failed after the change. I don't think this is the way to go at all.
What were the downfalls you experienced and do you have any ideas of how it could be implemented in a way to mitigate the downfalls?
I actually didn't mean my comment to come off as a negative slight against Whaleshares. I actually like that they tried something different. The jury is still out, I do see many people tipping posts but I also see many just checking in each day to claim their reward and give out about how the system works.
Whaleshares is a bad example, because they were seen as a copy-cat and the token had absolutely no value. It would have died, even without tipping.
I don't know if I understand it right, but that sounds like it's a complete disincentive to engage with the community if by voting your rewards diminish?
Posted using Dapplr
Votes would have to be separated from tipping; or rather the new way of voting would be far more like tipping and liking a post could do just that: liking (without any rewards behind it).
So you could just "like" a post (in which everyone's like has an equal weight and a like also determines its trending position on Hive) and also upvote/tipp it (which decreases one's personal reward pool for the day and transfer's some of it to the post that is being upvoted/tipped)?
Do we have something like "Hive Beta" where ideas like this could be tested? I feel that such a radical change to the ecosystem should first get tested to see how it works out. But I agree, we still need to figure out the fundamentals as the system still doesn't work optimally.
I'm not sure how the trending algorithm is going to look like in practice, but yes, you've got the gist of it!
I agree we need a practical & transparent way of testing ideas. Maybe @blocktrades or @howo have some thoughts on it?
I would never upvote so I get 100% of staking rewards. Wouldn't greedy people favor from this idea?
hmm yes, this would be a shot in the dark for sure.
I like it but this brings up the question of downvotes. Are they possible with this model? If not, what happens to bidbots?
No, downvotes will not be needed and vote-trading in any form will not work (incl bid-bots). Any stakeholder will generate the same amount of HIVE and some of that can be given away into the ecosystem, without actually taking something away.
This will also get rid of self-voting, sock-puppets, and any other form of trying to game the reward pool.
I see. But we get rid of self upvotes by making the default a self upvote right? So if you do nothing you get your rewards and that's that.
It definitely is simpler that the complex system we have right now, and probably better. But big changes are always scary.
Remember that the current rewards pool is based on "Proof of Brain" aka a group of brains can determine what content is good and worthy to reward. This is theoretically true, but as the group of brains gets bigger and the number of vultures also increases, this starts to get out of hand.
If Hive were used by a company, even a pretty big one, due to the fact that the identity of the participants is known and that bad actors would be punished, there wouldn't be any situations where whales could abuse their power, while staying in anonymity.
But as Steem and now Hive has grown in users, the potential for abuse and toxicity is increasing rapidly. And I don't want to tell anybody: "you can't downvote this". If it's their opinion that they want to downvote a certain post, they should be able to do so. But this is resulting in bad user experience. Do we want that? I would say: no.
The same is true for "self-voting". Look, if you invest a ton of money into HIVE and you want to min/max the sh*t out of it; then the last thing you want is to be targeted by self-pronounced "hive police" or "abuse-hunters". Even if they think they're doing the right thing: how many people have been pushed away because they didn't uphold the same standard as the "core-community" (which included me at some point).
IMHO, if we want Hive to succeed, we need to allow anybody to invest in HIVE and prosper with it; regardless if they want to do it for their own gain or to improve Hive. Otherwise, it's like saying: "I want free-speech, but that opinion should be censored".
I have to agree with you. It does create a lot of friction.
When I bought steem originally, I didn't know about all of the social conventions and was self-upvoting. Then I got blacklisted and downvoted to get 0 rewards.
I understood and just created a new account, but it definitely could have caused someone else to just sell and leave.
But I also wonder if doing such a change can have other consequences which we can't think of right now.
Its all good trying and rethinking things.
Do you think this will have an effect at all? Sometimes I feel we are just in the general crypto boat.
We had the EIP that is in favor of stakeholders in october and not even a year have passed since then.
What could improve things maybe is acctualy having a great app with super easy sign in and a great web page. Although for sure not a guaranaty for anything.
Also without zero incentive to vote, I really dont see it why would anyone do it.
It might be just as good to just remove the infation for author/curators and redisign the staking rewards. But to do this, SMTs are probably needed.
EIP was a different direction; it improved the symptoms but for Hive to be truly healthy & thriving, more drastic changes are needed. Even if individual reward-pools aren't the solution, I want to promote at least the idea that a global rewards-pool is not the way to go.
Also: no "great app with super easy sign-in and a great web page" that wants to attract millions of users wants to deal with monetary downvotes & the toxicity these bring. On the other hand, tipping is something that can be easily implemented and which is "neutral".
I like the idea of individual pools ... the next thing would be how to distribute it:
There are already STEEM based forks that works like that - user is given his staking-rewards once per day/week (depending on blockchain) and there is 99.9% spam free space.
The thing is that the same 99.9% of investors do not bother themselves by curating or posting anything. You will have another issue to solve - how to motivate people to do something else other than getting rewards.
Since those blockchains are spam free, the system force users to come and get their rewards daily / weekly or else they disappear.
Now we have illusion that blockchain is valuable because it is alive.
Who gives a f*ck about other forks? Whenever this argument is brought up, people seem to miss the point that there are simply no users on these forks, nor any real innovation or quality apps/frontends.
Congratulations @therealwolf! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board And compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
Wouldn't people just not vote then? To get the 100% reward pool?
There's a difference between voting to show that you like something and voting to reward someone; the latter will still be used, even if you will earn less and most importantly: it will mean much more when you do get rewards.
Do you really think that appreciator & upmewhale and the other curation-snipers are just so great at finding content or are they voting anything that fits their parameters so they can maximize their curation rewards?
Why would anyone give away the personal reward pool?
Content is total shit on STEEM, and yet, Hive price is less than 1 cent higher. It seems like coin price is not determined by blogging and contend much.
Maybe the price is being kept artificially up ;)
GREAT AND KEEP IT BROTHER. THE TIME IS MONEY, SAME SO WISE WORDS. THANKS YOU FOR SHARING BRO, WHEN I SEE YOUR POST, I AM REMENBERED FOR A KEEP THE TIME. NICE BROTHER
Me @joooi
I think what is holding back hive is that businesses don’t know where to start with hive. Don’t know who to go to for the information that would be valuable for them. For instance if I told an online magazine they could reward their users with their own token ( or hive ) on their website and they ask “so how do I get started ?” I can’t just say “go to the business integration section here”
But if that same magazine could go and start their token with their credit card and then run a plug in to integrate hive and their token on their web magazine it would be an easy process. The plug in could send them up sells and info> “hey , did you know if you stake hive you can blah blah >hey did you know that you can delegate hive/ your token to community members and have them do work on your behalf? Here is how it works....
The point I’m trying to make is there isn’t anything for businesses to easily buy into that would be of value to them and their customers .....yet.
Maybe a choice when you power up, you can get a fixed interest rate but you don't get curation rewards and is slightly less roi than curation as you have to.put the effort in, no interest rate but you can curate and maybe a third option where you can choose/split how much stake you want for a fixed return and curation.
Maybe make downvoting only affect your rep? And make it not stake weighted so one downvote only equals 1 vote rather than a big staker putting off someone. Would show the majority view of someone's rep as its misleading if one big staker can influence it that much.
I also like the idea of an increasing roi based on how long you have powered up for, maybe have the option to have the roi be made liquid rather than powered up, prevents people doing big power downs and having a negative affect on other users.
I like the daily reset because it fosters daily interaction. And making the most of your reward pool.
HP could generate HIVE pegged voting credit stakeholder could spend for either upvoting or downvoting whenever they want. Voting would immediately credit 50% of the vote's value to voter's HIVE balance as curation reward and the other 50% would increase/decrease content's author reward and be credited to the author once curation window has closed
I choose you as a witness, thank you sir, I hope you can be a good witness. 😍
https://hive.blog/steem/@tarazkp/locking-stake-for-100-passive-income-improving-content-helping-apps
Don’t TL;DR me 😛
Lock some, play with some.
What a Great way to lose the few remaining creators.Hive has much bigger problems than this.
Still facilitating abuse, some people never change, huh?
Interesting and effective. Sounds difficult to implement on current chain though?
I do not understand much, but the only thing I can say is that if it does not work well as a global form, it is because the individuals do not. So the problem would be the individual?