Maybe you haven't seen it?
That is because the person who wrote the post was "muted" by @proofofbrainio. It is a post by @azircon on LEOfinance warning people about POB not being a safe place to invest.
You can read the whole post here as I believe that no user should be muted.
Grains of Salt
Please, take this with a grain of salt. Much of the article is about a feud which is what it is...and the feud is about the reward distribution... which is what 99% of feuds on this blockchain are about. @azircon has made up their mind about not feeling like POB is a safe place to invest. After reading their article, I get it.
I don't want to promote any drama on the platform, but do want to say that @azircon brings a lot of valid information to the table which is cause for AT LEAST some discussion.
My take on the feud between users and the distribution of rewards... this is not a POB exclusive issue. People feud all over Hive and the reward distribution is far from perfect all over Hive and its tribes. Does POB have issues with a just distribution... sure. Is it any worse than other tribes or Hive itself? I'm up in the air on that one.
The real meat and potatoes of their article is this... The tribe "owner" muted a user. Yes, he was downvoting someone, but that is any stakeholders right.
Should @proofofbrainio be muting users?
No. Under no circumstances. If two users want to downvote each other and fight about reward distribution with their stake, they can go ahead and do it. This is my opinion on the matter. The "rules" of Hive-Engine allow for tribe owners to be a gate-keeper... and I have had a lot to say about the "rules" as opposed to the generally accepted norms.
(taken from the article I mentioned above)
Downvote campaigns can be warranted or unwarranted. Anyone can do with what their stake what they please. If they want to downvote someone, it is their right to do so. Whether or not I agree with how this works is irrelevant.
Trying not to get in the middle
I don't want to get in the middle of any conflicts. I just want to point out an issue that is fairly blatant. If we want to be on a decentralized platform, we cannot have a central authority deciding who can and can not be a part of the platform. We need to deal with our issues and build this thing up as a community.
@themarkymark wrote this post the other day which is also worth reading. When you take into account that the "owner" of this tribe is muting people, it is a cause for concern, especially given what was brought to light in this article.
What can we do?
I believe in this community. I believe that we have done some pretty great things in POB's short tenure. I think that we have brought great value to this blockchain and this tribe. There are a lot of people who have invested a lot of time and a lot of money into this platform and want what is best for it. We have also brought a LOT of value to @proofofbrainio's account as well and it would be a shame if trust was lost in them and this tribe and watch it all go down the drain.
So, I feel it is in everyone who has stake on this platform's best interest to have their say on how to move forward. I am just a guy who has been writing on here for a few months. @onealfa has invested a small fortune on this tribe. @leprechaun has been coding a new front end for the platform. There is a lot going on the really hinges on a tough discussion.
I still feel that POB is the best tribe on the blockchain and there is a ton of potential to grow this thing into something even better. That being said, it is tough to grow when there is an elephant in your room.
What are we talking about?
Should anyone have the power to allow or remove people from this tribe?
I feel that we need to be open to everyone, which means that no user should be muted and effectively banned from the platform. We all have stake and all face downvotes. Calling out the big kahuna, I face to never earn another POB token from writing anything ever again... but I feel that this is important if we are going to have a thriving tribe with any sort of longevity.
Finishing up
So please, comment on this... maybe I am blowing the whole thing out of proportion, maybe not?
I am posting this to LEOfinance because this is where @azircon's post originated.
I am "promoting" this post in hopes that it ends up more visible to everyone.
I am a very strong voice against "drama" on the platform, but I feel some conversations need to be had, and some elephants in the room need to be acknowledged.
Please join in the conversation and have your say.
I haven't followed the situation that closely as I want to stay out of drama. The truth is that POB isn't the first tribe to mute someone. This might be the first MUTE from a tribe owner that has got high level attention. I think the issue here is some peoples vision of what a TRIBE is. To me a TRIBE is a community and the creator of that community will decide in what direction to take the tribe. If onlookers like what they see they can invest, if they don't then there's plenty of other tribes that might better suit said persons interests.
Is the MUTE warranted in this particilar situation, that's up to every individual to decide for themselves. The only reason I am even slightly paying attention to this drama is because I recently made a decision to post most my created content from the POB frontend. For now I will continue to do so but as I originally decided I will look at all things POB including my blog success while using the POB frontend and reassses my decision within the upcoming weeks/months.
Ya, I hear that. I think POB is a good place to be posting and you likely will be very happy with the results.
I feel this is an important conversation to be having as it does have large ramifications on what kind of tribe we are involved in and growing. Thank you for reading and weighing in on it.
I don't know about this post. I can understand the point of view but there are many people who are on mute lists for communities. I believe I have been muted and removed from some upvotes. That is that. It seems when the rules are flipped on whales people run to the whales defence.
I do feel for Az, I am not his biggest fan and I do believe he goes about things in not the right way but he does mean well. He does try to ensure some form of accountability. Do I think he gets it right all the time? No.
I do believe his manoeuvre to acquire PoB and remove PoB votes is also a bad move. Posting about it stating PoB is not a safe investment also a bad move because he has me muted on a topic he got wrong with me (my opinion)
Furthermore, @proofofbrainio main account was smashed into oblivion further proving that the biggest threat are the whales. They are the central authority. So who keeps them in check when they step over the line?
There are no safeguards for anyone.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
You don't need to know about this post if you know what you think about the situation. That was my whole reason for posting it.
I agree that there was obviously a feud which was not my point of writing. Nor was, who was in the right or in the wrong.
I agree that @azircon was not right, and there are many things he did wrong in my opinion... such as downvoting the @proofofbrainio account to zero. He was also not entirely wrong. He wrote a post about POB that was not seen on POB as he was muted. It deserved to be seen.
The news of there being a mute option was what concerned me and this was the reason for writing this piece.
One argument that I hadn't considered was the whale that could wave his stake around and hijack a tribe if they so pleased.
DPoS is an interesting beast. Centralized tribe leadership fixes some of the issues of "too much power" as long as the "owner" doesn't abuse the extra power bestowed upon them.
Thank you for your response, I appreciate it.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I can't believe this. Hijack? With 400 tokens?
I heard mentioning this nonsence several times, from other ppl too.
AZ purchased 400 POB and it already made a noticeable spike in price.
One funny dude weeks ago tried to buy smth like 2000 POB, and it cleared the whole supply completely. Price went up 6x in a minute, up to 10 HIVE.
I am REGUALLRY buying POB on open market, every day purchasing between 500 and 1500 new POB tokens. I'm doing this for maybe 6-7 weeks now, EVERY SINGLE DAY, and yet I'm at <50% from tribe founder's stake.
That means I am still far far away from the levels, which would empower me to hijack this tribe.
(Not that I have any desire to do it)
I think this particular "MUTE" action was executed in the worst possible way - wrong reasoning, wrong justification, wrong timing. It made to this tribe a lot more BAD than GOOD.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I agree with you sir,muting someone because he used his stake for whatever reasons he desires is a kind of dictatorship and it should be discouraged..
totally!
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I agree, I don't dispute that. Az shouldn't have been muted and the posting from Luclin was crap. But Az' entry into PoB was not for the community but to remove upvotes. Agree that the account was getting way to many rewards.
But I talk to more broader issues.
My friend, you are one of the best curators and engage fairly, not everyone does.
I have seen Az post spam and get rewarded $90 even by whales.
My discussion is we need a better way to stop reward abuse.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
sholdn't someoone be able to power up TO dispute distribution if they disagree? Is that not one of the reasons to power up? He should be free to do so.
fair point @onealfa.
Bad?
He said the truth. Noted some reality facts. Which became an eye-opener to many POB participants.
And you find a reason to call it "BAD"?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
No, that has been taken out of context, perhaps I didn't communicate it properly.
Az behaves in that same manner muting people and there are also other communities that mute people.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I feel muting is an important tool when combating fraud or fraudulent activities.
Ok. So, there might be a place for muting. I can see your point there. Was the example mentioned in the article an acceptable use of that tool?
My take is no.
From the article presented, I have to agree with you. Note, I don’t mean to indicate something below the surface. I can only base it off of the data presented.
ah man....its such a drag really. I can see how difficult a situation this is. We are all desperate to move away from censorship and centralisation, but we dont want to be inundated with spam, scam, and copyclam (you heard it here first!).
I'm just wondering whether you could have bins of content so that stuff isnt muted or made invisible, but just put in to the junk folder as it were, so that people can still browse it (there can even be trending junk!). If there was a high senate deciding which bins certain content goes in to...I mean its still a lot of power, but its like a curation job.
Ooo, and maybe the public get to label things as a part of the voting system. So for every content bin that gets created theres an extra option in the voting. Or maybe just the downvoting?
So when you downvote, theres a mandatory second step which is to categorize the downvote: Junk, Plagiarism, Negativity etc.
This way, a tribe can still publish articles that negatively impact its reputation, but have them bunched together in an alternative feed. That way at least users can choose when to engage in more critical conversation. It could be seen as a bold move on the part of any community to wear its criticism on its sleeve like that... I don't know, maybe Im just barking up a useless tree.....
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
These are good ideas. I think that you should keep watching the pob-discussions tag and the governance posts that are popping up.
Well, in the last days I changed the way I see POB, and some things that happened contributed for it. I share some of the views of this post, I think is dangerous that some rules are being put aside when it's convenient, I would say it's sad when certain posts and content, with little real value, not following rules(formating, coerence, having a brain that seeks the truth and not only ideological bias) are being hugely suported against better content with low support.
I think that is the long run can put a limit to what is possible to happen here, I think that is necessary to talk about that, but not with FUD or spreading fear saying that the sky is already fallen, I think it's possible to heal the project and put it again in the tracks... if there is will for do that, I think its possible, but if there is no will, well... so far, so good.
Thank for you response. I totally agree that POB is full of potential and want to keep moving it forward. In order to keep it on track, there is constant maintenance, like keeping a garden. If well tended to, it can be one of the most beautiful things when it blooms.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
very solid and well balanced read! It's easy to 'hate' on whales but people should remember without them what exactly is holding things up? A more robust "middle class" seems to be sorta emerging which requires people having some sort of faith if not in some of the aspects but in the people involved themselves.
I hope it doesn't get too draconian, that's not good for biz imho.
@onealfa has his stake and can do what he wants with it as can all of us, I really think if I have the patience I need to write a super long post about DPOS or maybe just let people figure it out on their own. :)
take care and good piece!
axey
Thank you. It is really hard to write one like that. I felt more of an obligation than anything... It seems like things are moving in the right direction, which is great.
You are a good writer
Your post is reblogged and upvoted by me. It is a good post. Thank you @allcapsonezero
Thank you
Nice job, well done💯
Rebloged and promoted it, burning my 12 liquid LEO.
💥Boom!💥
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Thank you
Thanks for the enlightenment. Really appreciated
For sure we should all move on. That's the best thing to do in this case. But we should always consider to not lose trust from both sides. I wrote a post about that, I think you will like it. Check that here : Proof of Trust
Thank you @clixmoney. I always appreciate your perspective on this. I will look at your article.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I'm keeping an eye on this unnecessary chaos that is going on, and I confess that the direction Pob has been taking discourages me, funny how such a good project can be so fragile due to the simple lack of organization and mature governance. I hope this all settles down, it's pretty clear that mutating a user is wrong and not ideal,
as well as the way in which these curatorships have been distributed is not ideal.
It is very early on and these things are bound to happen. Distribution will take time to hit more hands... I am pretty sure that it will as more people enter the hunt. Many will also enter the market on either side. Conversations like this one just keep everyone involved in growing the tribe. If we are involved, we likely will get better results.
Same old story with every ProofOfBrain tribe. Starting to make me feel like the Proof Of Brain concept if flawed because it's a human aspect thus very flawed. Doesn't mean great things can't come from it though. The rise and fall of POB coming soon?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Ya, We shall see. I don't like being the guy who brings this up, but, someone had to. My thought is that POB can / still will be the place to be. That said, if we don't have the tough conversations... where will we be.
POB could be easy work with 30/30/30.
30% content curator / 30 % author / 30% active poster.
Sure it would need much more downvotes, but also a way better distribution
Maybe with a curve behind that adjust with time or something smart :).
Huge stake controlled by some = abuse.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
That's a neat concept.
Congratulations @allcapsonezero! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 3000 comments.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPIf they want to mute people, I think they should be able to but the reasoning here is off. Muting someone for downvoting someone else that receives a large POB estimated reward is why downvotes were added so i dont agree with this.
I think muting should be used to stop spammers, scammers, trolls and people that copy/paste content.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Hello. I'm just wondering if you still feel the same way:
I've recommended it for users that plagiarize multiple times on POB. They neither respond back to my comments or refuse to acknowledge the error despite the evidence presented. Other issues I've found to date:
There aren't a lot of people looking for this on POB. There is no way for me to reduce the number of times this occurs outside of a mute.
Yes, I feel that the downvote is a part of the system and "can" be used. I personally don't use it unless there is blatant phishing scams going on.
I feel that if I were legit spamming the network to mine crypto that I would not act in an upright manner when called out. I would keep my head down and mine. You, or others like you are just bumps in the road from their perspective.
I am not sure the best way to deal with it. I do know that accounts like yours or mine will get a much larger piece of the reward pool pie than spammers.
Can we fix the system beyond this? Not sure.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta