Dan had a pretty good idea of how to balance competing interests, but instead of letting the code change our behaviors, we changed the code.
Where @dan made his mistake was in allowing the ninjamine to go forward.
Accounts having outsized influence blew the balance all to hell.
It is still the biggest flaw I see in the design.
Instead of reining in the greedy that were destroying the platform, we changed the code to accommodate their negative behaviors.
'We' changed the code to include a tax for being poor of up to 50%.
I guess 'we' wanted the already too rich to grow even richer.
The imbalance in rewards to go to those with the most.
Brilliant, imo.
'We' still haven't run those people out of town for doing that to 99% of active users.
Their knobs still get slobbed because they still have outsized influence.
Now the two 'most active'(read: buys the most friends) communities are tracking your data and presumable selling it to the enemies of decentralization and freedom.
They tell us it's for our own benefit.
Somehow I doubt that.
All the while hive gets the reputation in the industry as being a steady transfer of funds from the suckers that buy in to the accounts that already have the most.
Can't really argue with that supposition when 50% of daily rewards for activity here go to 20 accounts.
The 20 accounts that already have enough influence to invalidate the original balanced design.
I've been going on about this for several years now.
You'd think people would start to catch on, but nope.
They continue to ignore the reality and prefer to slob the knobs hoping some crumbs will fall their way so that they can dump them as quick as they get them.
Until the current central controlling cliques no longer influence the pool we can forget about finding a better reputation and people willing to play along.
What has been will continue to be.
Smdh.
There should be a rebog feature on comments. I would love to reblog this comment 1000 times!
You can do that on ecency.com
I just did it from this account, which is my test account.
You have to open the comment directly by clicking on the time that the comment was posted.
Here's the proof:
Check @eddiespinod. It is also shown on peakd.com
damn! thanks! have seen this a few times already and always wondered
@peakd why not also on ur frontend?
if @peakd reply, i'll eat my hat (aand be happy too)
let's go @peakd !!!!
come on
@peakd !
NICE! I never noticed that before!
Thanks for the heads up!
Thanks! Yes, it is a very interesting feature!
I see that it is also possible through the inleo.io
You could copy/paste it into a post and set the rewards to burn, or add 200+ words of your own and accept rewards.
I sure don't mind.
The ninjamine did create issues, removal of Steemit fixed most of it but this here I'm fine with.
It did make sure Hive cant sustain creators but if those that put in no money get a larger chunk of the inflation than those that actually put money in, we end up having a problem.
You could describe everything in crypto like that from Bitcoin to Ethereum to Hive. But only Hive gives out some rewards for participation in the ecosystem.
So you are actually a bigger sucker for taking part in any of the other crypto ecosystems over that of Hive.
Amen.
If we don't like how hive is being managed we should power up more hive.
The people that put in the most money should be mostly focused on raising the price, imo.
The <6% that will be diluted this year is negated by a .03 rise in price.
Were the price to double, the <6% is inconsequential, as relates to outside values.
Yet, the control freaks still want to control it, and everything else.
What I meant is that you described the "greater fool theory" and that can apply to every single cryptocurrency. At least Hive rewards you for simple participation in the ecosystem without you having to invest anything.
Bitcoin doesnt do that, Ethereum doesnt do that. Not even Steem does that anymore. Whales just vote themselves.
So in a sense, if indeed everyone in crypto is a fool, on Hive we are the least foolish.😂
Yes, number should go up, soon™.
As 'ownership' spreads, things will get better.
Not necessarily. But more people holding a currency is never a bad thing.
Presuming those with enough to send the price to zero don't decide to do that.
Doesn't seem to be the plan according to the behaviors from the top.