Is the act of burning tokens with the intention of raising the token's value paradoxical when burning tokens is reducing the distribution percentage and increasing the stakes of those voting to burn?
From my point of view, I believe this jeopardizes the concept of Proof of Brain since the value derived from POB will be resting on those who hold stake and decide where to allocate votes.
If there are fewer with stake, there is less range when it comes to the reward pool distribution.
Bitcoin is known as a store of value and the burning of BTC makes sense since fewer tokens in circulation equals a higher price per BTC, fundamentally.
POB differs from this since fewer tokens in stakes equal less evidence of Proof Of Brain.
If we take the act of voting on the burn posts as an example; there are two actions happening.
- Tokens are sent to null, reducing the total supply.
- Those who have voted receive a 50% curation reward from their vote.
This means that a percentage of tokens are leaving the circulation and not going into the accounts that are providing content within the Proof of Brain community.
Voting on the post itself doesn't exactly demonstrate an understanding of how the Proof Of Brain mechanics work. I can understand the thought process behind voting but I believe it's short-sighted and doesn't take into consideration where the real value lies in the token.
The only reasoning I can see for voting, except for curation rewards, is to increase the dollar (or whatever currency you want to insert here) value of the token.
It's true that if this is higher it will attract other people to the platform and will provide other opportunities, although I believe this is a double-edged sword because it sacrifices wider distribution of the token and reduces more evidence of Proof of Brain being demonstrated on the platform.
One thing to note is that the token doesn't have witnesses to handle the governance and decisions for the betterment of the platform.
If burning tokens is something that people see as beneficial in these early stages, I propose something which I think makes far more sense.
@proofofbrainio burns a percentage of their curation rewards every week.
This would apply to all larger stakeholders also but it makes the most sense for proofofbrainio to do this at this current time (I don't think anyone should burn in all honesty, but I don't just have the monetary value of the token on my mind).
I'm no mathematician but I'd suggest that the main things that factor into the percentage amount being determined are;
Amount of tokens burned doesn't risk the account losing valuable stakepower which can be used to tackle abuse
If 21 million isn't the magic number of tokens, what is? And what price ceiling is plausible?
This further opens up discussion surrounding how liquid funds would be handled on the @proofofbrainio account and what the handling of said tokens would do to impact the platform.
It's understandable that @proofofbrainio is a person (insert Satoshi reference here) and the account should be utilised in the same way as other accounts, but this poses some ethical dilemmas and should be considered by those investing time and money.
The burn proposal is merely a way to highlight how a different method could be introduced which doesn't hinder the organic nature of distributing tokens to an extent (Again, I don't think any should be burned right now, I believe there are better methods for improving the value of the token).
My position on burning tokens changed after @trostparadox mentioned the distribution elements in a comment not long ago.
In terms of the self-rewarding aspect of voting the burn posts, I am guilty of voting on them myself when they were first introduced and I did so on the 6th day with a 100% vote to maximize curation rewards and the amount burned. Slap my wrist.
I hope this can spark further discussion and people can raise their thoughts about the different viewpoints that can be made on this subject.
I'm tagging all the people below who voted on @madstacks recent burn post (top 20 names or so) to notify them about this post and try to discover what their opinion is.
@vempromundo.pob @onealfa.pob @oldmans @interpretation @harpreetjanda @marvinix @dwayne16 @scholaris.pob @pandaparker @californiacrypto @antonym @curamax.pob @dalz.shorts @thranax @spinvest-leo @pialejoana @andy4475 @revise.pob @stratton.npc
Visit the Ongoing POB Discussion Thread to find recent posts about important POB-related topics.
I know, we need an update.
Don't forget to write your post for this week's POB Word of the Week!
There is 525 POB (liquid) up for grabs. That's about 472 HIVE at today's current price.
Awesome post @calumam. PoB is a new token and the best way to acquire it is by adding value through content creation or curation.
Since it is already scarce in nature, burning the tokens is detrimental to the growth of the ecosystem.
Instead, we must use those precious tokens to either distribute the rewards in a decentralized way or to fund the development of the platform. IMO, doing both at the same time is a great idea.
As you mentioned, right now we should focus on the distribution. Only the main account i.e. @proofofbrainio should continue doing it every now and then. There is no need for us to contribute to that process, at least for now.
Maybe 2-3 years later down the line, when we have enough tokens in circulation, it would make much more sense for more people to join this initiative.
As @trostparadox mentioned in one of his comments.:
Distribute NOW
Burn LATER
Thanks @calumam for the mention and thanks for an excellent explanation as to why burning POB is not a good thing to do, at least not at this point in time.
Like many other topics, I have not had time to explain my thoughts in more detail. I am extremely happy being able to use part of my voting influence to upvote those who are articulating what I have as yet been unable to put into writing myself. This is one of those cases. (Although my perspective is less about voting influence per se and more about the need for liquidity and the need for widespread adoption of POB, both of which rely on MORE tokens being available to spread around and to facilitate exchange transactions.)
(NOTE: I also upvote content that I find provocative and/or interesting to the point that others should see it, even if I disagree with it. So never take an 'upvote' from me to mean agreement, unless I explicitly say so.)
I should start commenting when I support provocative stuff. It got me thrown under the bus a few times by guilty by association mind states.
I noticed this in your HIVE bio the other day when I was stalking your voting habits on hivestats, lol. An understandable approach, it also covers your back when it comes to autovoting.
From your own perspective of the need for liquidity, do you have any thoughts about how this could be achieved in a constructive way via the use of the @pob-fund or @proofofbrainio's liquid holdings (the liquid holdings raise some ethical questions like I mentioned in the post, I believe)?
If my only goal is to maximize my percentage ownership of all POB, I should support burn posts, and tell everyone to send a percentage of their POB to @null but not do so myself. Burning shifts the reward in a sense from author rewards to a kind of staking reward, where large holders, like myself, get a benefit for the mere act of holding the POB coin. That is, even if I don't vote at all, I benefit from the supply not growing so fast. You' re totally right about it not being "proof of brain."
It also means however a tiny amount of less rewards for posting, and curating (both in overall percentage and POB). Fortunately the difference is minimal.
I think it's been two months since POB was launched. This means the annual inflation rate should be 650% over the next twelve months. In other words, neglecting the burns, in a year from now the supply will be 7.5 times the size of what it is now.
Interesting points.
I'll throw out a rough hypothetical then based on the current numbers this morning.
441,000 (Total supply today incl. burned) * 7.5 = 3,307,500
Current burn percentage = 0.25%
0.25% of 3,307,500 = 8268.75
As I mentioned in the post, I'm no mathematician. Can you see any other contributing factors which would decrease or increase the burn percentage from its current percentage of 0.25%?
Yeah. You got me. It's definitely selfish. :(
I want to make ten upvotes per day and on a slow day, where I'm having trouble finding enough quality posts, I'd burn the tokens, since it's raising the tokens value and rewarding me with my (still very small) curation-reward.
I'm slowly coming around to the other point of view. I still think it should be fine to selfvote posts, that you're happy with and voting a burn post to increase the value of your stake and the value of the token itself.
It might be arguable, that a stable/high price of the token, is part of the reason people are flocking to our tribe.
But in the end the benefit of burning and selfvoting is so little, I'm starting to doubt it is worth the hassle of arguing with people who seem to feel much stronger than me about it.
I`ll definitely stop selfvoting and barring any great arguments for burning, I will stop supporting these, too.
I'm just throwing my opinion grenades out there and some people get hit by the shrapnel, lol. Everyone is going to have different feelings about voting and burning alike, there's nothing wrong with that, it would be boring if we all thought the same way.
The main thing to takeaway is that there are opposing arguments to some methods which people could come to find themselves if there was some extra thinking applied. Sometimes that thinking isn't easily done, sometimes it is.
Personally I don't see it as any issue whatsoever (obviously since I run them) people have 10 full upvotes a day and if they wish to give one (or a percentage of one) to a burn post I do not see the harm at all. There is more than enough distribution to new accounts. Also what if you dont see content you feel is worth your upvote 10 times a day? the burn post is a perfect way to spend your upvote.
I would also argue that it is futile to try and control how votes are given, if people want to upvote a burn post they should be able to. You could also say it isnt fair how some people get large pob rewards just based on autovoting but it happens.
You could also say that people who promote thier posts are removing distribution, that pob used to promote could be powered up and used to vote and distribute but it isnt. However promoting posts this way is an integral feature of proofofbrain.io, burning pob is already integral.. My posts just accelerate that.
If you start telling people "you cant do this, or you cant vote on that" then that takes away from the value of the token.
These are my counter arguments. Plenty of people are in favor of the burn posts as the votes suggest.
I am also well aware that anyone against them can downvote to remove the burnt payouts.
I am giving this a 100% self upvote for visibility, any payout rewards will be burnt.
Systematic burning is very short sighted. It let's go of the opportunity we now have of creating a well distributed and decentralized token. Building a "strong POB middle class" is good for the growth of the platform not only by incentivizing more people to come, be active, and stay, but also to ensure a good correlation between engagement and rewards for new users (the more people that have significant Staked POB AS opposed it just being held by a few accounts, the more it matters to engage and build a wide following). This is what you want in order to have a strong network effect and a pleasant social experience for users that drives growth. As opposed to new users only identifying and engaging with a small circle.
I really believe that laying a good foundation this way will bring far more new demand for the token in the long run, which will bring more value to stakeholders than the reduced potential selling pressure achieved by burning.
So imo that's how we should think of we're playing to win and not only to not fail.
A separate issue though worth its own discussion is what a stakeholder ought to do at times when there's simply not the time in the day to look through a sufficient amount of content to use up one's votes, or if one simply can't find contributions (posts) that seem worth to vote on. Is it ok to burn some then? Or is it still better to give a random surprise upvote that can give a bit of a pleasant feeling to someone almost at random? Not sure if there is a "right" answer to that, but curious of your opinion:).
You have a week to vote on posts. I would find it difficult to believe you don't think anything this week wasn't worth voting on. If there is such a dry spell, the curator should post. If all the rest are really poor, he could end up with 250 POB in author rewards.
To avoid losing out on curation rewards one still has to vote on at least 70 posts (assuming all votes are 100%) per week not to run up against 100% though?
Speaking for myself, I know that I can have some weeks where I really enjoy looking for underrated authors, reading their posts, and handing them a well deserved upvote. But then there can also be weeks where I just want to spend less time looking at a screen and instead relax more.
But my point above wasn't really about my own experience (I've been manually curating for almost 4 years), but more what I observe in other power users.
In any case, that's even more reason to want to allocate rewards not only to those making great posts, but also to those who engage with others and thus use their obtained stake to improve the user experience and growth of the token and website.
If someone has something against autovoting, say so. We really haven't had a conversation about this for POB. If your following a curation trial, you are still relying on a brain to curate, just not yours but a combination of other people's brains. I was wondering whether using this could mean the bot might change the vote you make or does the software avoid that somehow. You can do this at hive.vote. If we all follow each other we can give the posts the amounts they deserve without us all reading everything.
If I follow you and you follow me, could we cause a loop? You set to vote at 90% of my vote, and I do something similar, like to vote 95% of what you vote. So I vote 100% manually, the bot so votes as you with a 90% vote. Now the vote realizing the vote has changed with your account recasts the vote at 95% of 90%. The process repeats until the vote gets to zero or some point where rounding makes it constant.
This is what the short-sightedness really shines light on because there is nobody who can look into the future and say "yes, this is the perfect size for POB and any more people would ruin the platform".
I think @leprechaun said it best and I'd add that if you can't find the time to vote responsibly, find a responsible curator with a trail who can (link to @vempromundo's latest post)
I wonder if it would make sense for wallets or dashboard to provide a suggested list of manual curators worth trailing. I know from the past 4 years that the imposed need to curate in order to "not lose out" against inflation has caused people to just power down and sell on Hive in the past.
Anyways, I myself have mostly enjoyed manually curating for almost all of my 4 years here, so mot really thinking about myself in this case.
I think that's a great idea. There could be stats linked to it which highlight how many votes they make in a week, how many different authors, links to their hivetasks or hivestats, what authors/tags they frequent, etc etc, the list goes on. There are going to be problems with curation trails if no responsibility/accountability is taken by the curator, if all their data is blindingly clear to see they might think twice.
I prefer manual curating myself too, I think I directed that comment to you as if someone else was reading it, lol. I had quite a few to reply to yesterday morning and my belly must have been growling towards the end.
Burning tokens only makes sense to increase the value of said token. At the moment I don't think burning tokens makes much sense in the early days of the token. Wider distribution is better, though I do see that many people rewarded POB aren't staking, but dumping at these prices which is to be somewhat expected.
That dumping isn't a bad thing either, it's keeping the market active which is a crucial factor in generating interest.
First: Thanks for the pleasant mention, it seems that there were things that I did not know...and here they have thrown them on the table, ready to enjoy them.
Second: I honestly did my vote in favor because I had always understood that the burning of tokens helped to improve the price of the same, which in general is in favor of the growth of the platform's economy...However, now I have sunk in a sea of doubts ... I will investigate about it.
Another push that the fact of voting gave me is that I did a power up; I was willing and encouraged to perform some cures in my early morning of insomnia...😅😅
Thank you and greetings @calumam.
Burn posts remove rewards that would go to some users that might actually have no POB at all and instead it gets destroyed (reducing the inflation rate - helps the savers) So this shifts value from those creating content to those holding.
That sounds like the polar opposite of the mission statement for Proof of Brain.
@proofofbrainio
Can't disagree with that logic.
What I have highlighted in bold is all I hope to see when sharing some of my opinions for others to read. I'm not a genius and I can't lay claims that are 100% factually sound. Everyone should think for themselves.
This is a question that has puzzled me about cypto. The less tokens we have the more valuable they are so we burn tokens. But at the same time the more tokens we have circulating and actually being used then the more value there is in the token.
If token A is in ample supply and is held by just a few wallets and not optimized then it has no real value. It should be burned.
If token B is in ample supply and is distributed among millions and utilized in daily interactions than there is no need to be burned. The coin has value in itself. This is what is happening with Ether. People are seeing a value with the token itself.
It's cool that you are transparent and admit that you regret past actions of voting on burn posts. I'm still not convinced that burning is such a bad idea and could be necessary to produce scarcity, but I see the paradox @calumam.
You hit onto the point I made about "what is the magic number?", and it all comes down to the dollar value in terms of burning (I think).
Success! I can rest easy this week knowing that my attempts for WOTW were solid. It is not an easy one to write about, there is some real thinking and consideration for your opinions that needs to happen (well, if you are concerned about being accurate that is).
I think you may be the first person to recognize this token paradox. I'm glad to read it :)
I gave up self voting over 2 years ago and haven't posted in a couple weeks to concentrate on manually curating good content in 3 different communities (POB, Leo, Hive) and keep my VP from going to far under 90%. So I would like to think I am not here for entirely selfish reasons. :)
I have voted for 6 of the last 10 burn posts so I am some where in the middle as far as my thoughts on burning but I am far from an expert. I get approximately 5-6 POB for a burn post (which I always stake). I get around 60-70 POB a day for all my manual curation. So on the odd days I do vote for the burn post is that abuse of the system? It just seems like a good way to help the value of the token every so often. Which in the end helps large and small stakeholders alike.
@oldmans I believe that this decision of yours is a very good one and I applaud you for that...thank you sir...
Thank you! Being in the position of having enough stake that my vote actually matters is new territory for me but it is a good position to be in. :)
I just mentioned to @antonym also that I throw out my opinions and there are some people that get hit by the ricochets, it's not a position of calling anyone out by any means, just food for thought and an attempt to get more opinions out on the table.
I've noticed the drop in posts from you lately but it's great to hear that you're zoning-in on quality curation and it's keeping you busy.
I'm not directly saying that it's abusing the system at all to vote on burn posts. My comments about the self-rewarding aspect may come across like that but it's more to highlight that it's removing from circulation while limiting the scope of distribution. There hasn't been much discussion about the cause and effect of voting on them so it seems just to bring it up.
Thank you for mentioning me, I will state my opinion on the subject.
After reading several reviews in the comments, today I decided to stop voting for burning posts the way it is happening at the moment. I will contribute again if it is done in a different way.
Rather than just sending the reward to @null, I think it could be done in a way that helps the community.
Burning posts can become publicity posts, since instead of sending directly to limbo, @madstacks could take that value and promote quality publications.
This way you will be sending to @null, but at the same time helping someone who is producing original content for our community.
What do you think?
I think instead of voting a low effort post to fund a promotion of another, you should simply find that other and vote it up. That's what us curators are supposed to do. I browse the Proof of Brain Community every day, I go to the New Tag and then I click "Proof of Brain" on the left hand side and read through things.
Yes, I also follow the same method of going to the New tab, and in some I also visit the payout to see if I have forgotten one with quality
Glad to see your response @vempromundo. I was concerned when I saw your vote on the post because I wasn't sure how this would reflect for your curation trail. I understand the thinking behind the votes, like I mentioned in the post, but I feel like the method isn't benefitting the platform in the long run and the value of the token is being misconstrued in a certain sense.
@leprechaun, again, raises the simple solution of just finding someone who may need a little boost if you're struggling to find someone to vote on. Make someone's day with your fat 100% upvote and spur them on to stick with the platform.
After I started to understand how the trail works, he decides not to vote for the Burn Post anymore, but to focus on the strategy that @leprechaun said
That's something I always wondered.
It seems counter productive. Instead I would rather see a project post that states all tokens for this post will be used to fun the project. That's something I can get behind instead of just flat out so called burning tokens.
I'd also like to see a real way of burning tokens not just transferring them
Yes, that's true. The tokens are only burned from the author reward payouts, so it's kind of a loophole for self-rewarding (imo). @allcapsonezero raised a great point, what if there were ten burn posts a day? This way someone could use their ten 100% votes on each post.
I guess the concept of burning coins is to reduce supply in the hope demand stays the same thereby increasing price. This is shown to exist in the real world where real estate has limited supply resulting in many markets steady increases as incomes and demand increases with population growth.
But i see your argument is that by burning POB we will have less tokens distributed, and hence demand will fall too and the hoped for price increase might not happen. This is a very real possibility.
However I like to think of it differently, if i get half the tokens for a post or creation, I dont really care if the token is double the value. So it all comes down to if burning will result in a more narrow distribution of rewards or not, that depends on curation behaviour so its really hard to tell what the true outcome will be.. hopefully thats some food for throught when thinking through the complex behaviour impacts that burning may have.
Demand in an overall sense that the platform itself is quintessentially demonstrating the Proof Of Brain mechanism and if there is a less range of evidence to provide Proof Of Brain, then there will be knock-on effects which we currently cannot see.
This is exactly what I've tried to raise, food for thought so others can settle on their own decisions.
I had suggested that instead of burning the tokens for it to be set as a @pob-fund beneficiary post. That way pepl still get curation rewards and we get more funding for the project in the future but the reply I got was that isn’t burning tokens and he wasn’t interested because we already have the Friday POB-Fund Beneficiary posts already going. Others commented under my idea and liked it but it went no where.
I don’t think they should get burned either but am guilty of upvoting the posts. I will personally stop upvoting the burn posts. Glad we have this convo going.
Maybe we should create a handful of witnesses for POB to make these decisions.
I think this is a much better way of utilising a daily post that adds value to the platform. We haven't really dove into how liquid funds should be managed on the @proofofbrainio account but I have the opinion that using those for funding has some ethical problems which we still have to explore (or at least learn more about from proofofbrainio).
Everyone with stake is technically a witness (in simple terms) and I believe there are plans to introduce a governance bot to the platform to help with proposals and decisions. This means that distribution, already priority number one imo, is even more important for the long-term success of the platform.
There has to be a better use than just burning the tokens. I think the POB-Fund is the way to go. As far as ethical problems with using the liquid coins for funding future growth of the project could be figured out with the man and some community discussion.
Personally, I don't really consider myself technically knowledgeable enough to comment in a very constructive way about this issue. My only hope is that those who really do understand it, will make the right decisions for the future of $POB & the Community.
Many Thanks for the tag @calumam appreciated √
!PIZZA
@calumam! I sent you a slice of $PIZZA on behalf of @andy4475.
Learn more about $PIZZA Token at hive.pizza
Not to worry Andy, just dropping by a comment to say you've stopped by to see what the fuss is, is great, lol. I'm not any good with the technical side either, I just think about some things for a little while and question the logic behind them.
PS: Nice practical use of the #pob-wotw also.
Thanks, I was unsure whether or not the post would hold up on the initial question alone. I think it has got people thinking anyway.
I would not say I know a lot about the benefit of burning tokens here but I would say that I prefer we hold them so that we will be able to vote posts that teach us lessons, we could not find anywhere else apart from here.
This will be a way to appreciate the content creator and to motivate them to create more.
And, I agree with you when you said, we should not concentrate on burning the token because it is still relatively new as compared to bitcoin whose burning to increase its market value
As for self voting, I usually feel if I do that, it means I will forfeit the rest of the votes on my posts or comment voted by other users, so I never tried that
This is more of the point I'm getting across. By burning the tokens at this stage it is limiting the distribution and reducing the range of people who have stake, which in turn reduces the evidence of Proof Of Brain (the concept and mechanism)... and that's what we're called, right? lol.
I think a lot of people have already made a good point to how they feel about the burn post issue.
As for me I would like to say that this is a decentralized platform which encourages free speech and every opinion matters, either from newbie to whale. Thus the influence we have is what differ and the type of people we interact with.
I love the idea of you calling people out to being things to the spot light where we’ll all have our brain to interpret how it feels on issue that are not widely acceptable by everyone.
Here’s my honest take , the burn post is just a post that the rewards can change with upvotes and downvotes. I personally have voted for the burn post more than three to four times now and I won’t say I enjoy not regret my actions, rather I would implore each active users curating contents on the POB community to judge the burn post according to how they feel it should be. Moreover, we can’t stop an account from uploading a post, as that counters why we are here in the first place, which is to be fully decentralized , and which I believe we are not near that but I believe we are getting there with time.
I can’t stop @madstacks from posting the burn post or any other post. The option I have is either to vote for his post or not.
Now with this brief illustration, I know we all know what to do. PEACE✌🏽☮️
Couldn't agree more and I think that raising these thoughts and opinions should be encouraged across that range of accounts too.
Definitely, just because one person says something doesn't mean it is correct or justified, just that it provides information for you to make your own decision on the matter.
Eu estou por fora disso para ser sincero. Mas tudo que vale dinheiro e possa pagar minhas contas, eu não queimo não. Prefiro é ter para usar para esses fins lol
Perfect example of why it may be better to have some tokens lying around and why others may find uses for the distribution at this current time.
That's right.
Me in Brazil, the value of the pob helps me a lot to pay bills when sales are low.
Imagine the people of venezuela then ...
Now, who has a lot and the value does not make a difference in your pocket today, can’t see it around the world.
Only give value to money, who once knew how expensive it is to have 1 unit of the value of the currency of your country ...
The danger with a non-inflationary coin is that no one wants to spend any and everyone just wants to hoard it. In the early days, I think it is better to get the non-inflationary coin as widely distributed as possible. Like buying pizzas with the coin sort of thing.
Wide distribution is crazy important for a token that is heavy on the social side. Heck, wide distribution is important for every token.
In total agreement.
Also, voting on burn post creates 50% of the reward for voters and this 50% would not be burnt, it is just made for the purpose of burning the other 50% the post author would get.
In other words, in order to burn a particular amount that same amount was created and sent into circulation and this amount wouldn't have been created in the first place where it not for the attempt being made at burning. So while trying to burn, new tokens are put into circulation. You get what I mean right?
Oh yeah I get what you mean, lol. It's one of my arguments for why it could be seen as unhealthy for the platform because it is increasing the stakes of those who already have a moderate stake, when distribution is far more important at this time (depends on what you see as valuable I guess and where you are on the ladder).
This got my brain juices flowing. I am right there with you on this, and @trostparadox and @leprechaun. If there were 10 users all doing burn posts, I could effectively distribute NO POB to anybody but myself.
Sold. I won't upvote burn posts moving forward.
I was considering adding an extreme hypothetical to the post to try and illustrate that the idea behind it is flawed. I try to do things that hold up in extreme situations because that's how true value can be determined.
What if everyone on the platform voted on the burn post every day with a 100% upvote? What if everyone voted every day with 10 100% upvotes on separate burn posts?
I know they are extremes, but half-measures for some acts don't make much sense to me. That's also why I shared an alternative method and proposal.
Instead of burning tokens, stake them to users that you know are active.
I do frequently in the way of delegations, but yes those tokens (no matter how small) are better in someone else's stake rather than being removed from the platform (at this current time).
Plagiarism!!!
You now have my attention.
You don't want my attention...
@lucylin and @calumam, please tag me whenever you see plagiarism like this, so I can add my downvote to the garbage.
@nulesmallz10, you should really think before you act. It was dumb to blatantly plagiarize, then it was dumb to accuse your accuser and thus shine the spotlight so clearly upon your bad behavior.
This is comedy gold lol 🤣🤦♂️
Lol you sound obviously foolish
Will do, boss.
Sure thing, there have been a few chancers so far and a couple of them have rectified their approach and started to post their own content.
Welcome aboard, clowns
https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@nulesmallz10/the-tragic-exploitation-of-an-african-woman-sara-baartman
On my radar....(not you..lol) ...see above...
I hope to never find myself on that radar of yours, lol.
I now have the whole of the fucking hive whales, on my radar ! lol
I hope proofofbrain can be independent of this cesspit...
Likewise. It's going to take some people calling out questionable activities and some guidance of the culture we want to see, it's doable.
It's going to take some people calling out questionable activities and some guidance of the culture we want to see, it's doable.
ME! ME ! ME!
Congratulations @calumam!
You raised your level and are now a Minnow!
Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
Yes, something like that 😂
@calumam I wrote a new post, go check for plagiarism