Curation rewards are one of the benefits of being a hive power holder. It's already been pointed out several times to you that anyone voting for these posts could just as easily follow a curation trail and achieve the same curation rewards that you are whining about. If investors want to fund development, that is their right.
It's more than a bit self-serving to upvote these uninformed FUD posts of yours with James' stake, so I'm going to start downvoting to counter it.
Kenny is all misinformation. It's dangerous and basically a negative propaganda. We must request jamesec to remove that delegation. That is the best solution in my humble opinion.
Somehow things that I'm sharing, pulled directly from the blockchain, are misinformation?
Says the person single-handedly attempting to drive journalists & freedom fighters off the platform...
We've talked recently, he's read my posts, he knows what's going on.
Best solutions would probably include things like:
Wasn't it just a bit over 2 years ago this very thing was happening on Steem?
Good to see things don't change.
I will continue to DV over rewarded content as I mentioned to you earlier.
Go ahead and go after some spam comments making thousands of dollars, instead of content that is high quality, time consuming, and from influencers with more followers than Hive has users, making $50-200.
You are now clinically insane to me. If you can't understand blocktrades and smooth's explanation, smooth being some of the brightest and smartest blockchain expert I know, I can't make you understand. You are a lost case.
I've already emailed James tonight to see if he supports this. I had an earlier email from him that leads me to believe he doesn't, but I'll see what he says.
We came to the decision not to downvote the hbd.funder comments anymore. I haven't done so since we made that decision.
Did you think you were somehow going to convince Jimmy to get me to self-censor or something?
No, I don't expect anyone to get you to self-censor yourself. Where did you get that idea? I just don't think it makes sense for him to be amplifying your ideas with his stake, when it appears that your comments are aimed at damaging the value of that stake.
You state,
This says volumes! This is a free speech platform by design and a dissenting opinion is damaging? No! Dissenting opinions are necessary to prove it is what it claims to be...
When high stake owners care more about the money than the precedent, like your comment implies you've just proved the point @kennyskitchen is making with this post.
You characterize this post and his comments as just dissent opinions, but they and his previous post on the same topic are mostly focused as an attack on the reputation of the voters for these comments and on Hive in general. He is clearly attacking the chain and essentially accusing it of being worthless. There's no reason a stakeholder who diasgrees with that assessment should vote for his statements, and that's what this discussion is about: I've suggesting to jamesc that he should not allow his voting power be used to promote ideas he doesn't agree with and that hurt the value of the chain he is supporting (including the values of the tokens he holds).
This is a free speech platform: that should be obvious from the amount of criticism that is being discussed now. I just see no reason for the chain to reward criticism that is unfounded, and especially I see no reason for it to reward that criticism with stake from someone who I think disagrees with the criticism.
Here are my posts, in TLDR form, since I started down this path:
You whales who've never read or watched my content and didn't know who I was until I started calling out this activity can pretend that I'm just some Hive hater - but the last half of a decade shows how ridiculous that is.
If I didn't care about Hive or wanted to damage it, I would be shit-posting about Hive on my Odysee channel, on Flote, etc. Instead, I'm here, still spending my time, doing research, being slandered and verbally assaulted by multi-millionaires, and trying to shake things up enough that maybe changes happen.
I've accepted that means that I probably won't ever earn posting rewards on Hive again - and it's been freeing to release the attachment that I had to this place.
Thanks! I sincerely expect that jamesec understands and hopefully put a stop to this insanity.
I think what he is actually trying to say is that some Posts with low quality is also getting overvalued curation. The reward pool is getting misused here.
I also felt that way by looking at some posts in some communities. If this is continued, what happened to steemit will happen to hive and investors will stop investments and the hive price will go down. It's for the best that he pointed this out. I support him as blockchain reward pool should never be misused like this by some groups of individuals on hive.
No, if you read his post above (and other posts he has maid in his blog), you will see he is actually on the other side of the issue.
His primary complaint has been he is opposed to downvoting as a way of lowering post rewards.
Well, except when he does it, apparently, in which case he seems to feel totally complacent about not only downvoting comments and posts critical of him, but is also more than willing to go on a downvoting spree against that user's other posts/comments in a revenge attack. See @nonameslefttouse's comment for more details on one such example.
I read his comment just now, but still "isn't hive a decentralized platform and the hbdstabilizer account is owned by someone or a group of individuals. If the hive was centralised it will be properly regulated but as it's decentralized will there be any guarantee that the hbdstabilizer account won't get misused one day.
Anyways I know, it's none of my business but still, I asked this because I was just curious to know about it.
The operation of the the hdbstabilizer is completely transparent, because it only undertakes operations on the blockchain. So if the current, well trusted operator (@smooth) ever decided to misuse those funds, it would quickly be detected and the proposal funding for it would be cut off extremely quickly.
Personally, having conversed with smooth for many years now, I have a high degree of confidence in his integrity, and I think this is true for many other stakeholders as well. But it's also worth pointing out that @smooth is one of the larger stakeholders in Hive, so it would not make much sense for him financially to abuse the funds he controls. And he's intentionally designed his bots to minimize the risks of malfeasance (for example, in the case the keys for the stabilizer-related accounts got hacked).
In summary, the risk for misuse of funds is very low, and the rewards from its operation are high.
Unles you're a Hive holder who supports content that folks like azircon/curangel don't like. Then your curation rewards are systematically erased, along with those creators' rewards.
And my response every single time has been that the huge difference there is that the other 50% of the stake would be going directly to tons of different creators that way, thus decentralizing Hive more. This part never seems to have a response besides "the DHF is decentralized," which is pretty laughable.
True, and there is a DHF for that, as well as devs who post updates which can be up-voted, and donations and such. To me, the biggest problem here is the lack of transparency ($30M in rewards last year huh - how much went to content?), and the hipocrisy of many of these systematic DVers saying it's because actual content is "over-rewarded," even though we're often talking about 20-40 minute videos and long-form text posts, which earn (before downvotes) only a fraction of one of these comments that are made 10x a day.
The posts have had rewards declined, or in this case 100% burnt. I'm not getting anything out of this.
I'm losing myself curation rewards to upvote this for visibility. Now that you've zero'd this one out, I will be paying Hive to promote it, as I did with the others when they got zero'd out.
Posts were always intended as a way to fund work done for Hive (marketing, software development work, etc). The DHF is another way. The DHF delivers a fixed inflationary amount and gets around some fundament problems associated with funding ongoing work, but posts allow stakeholders to allocate more. I also routinely vote up posts by devs for the work they do, but I'm well aware that the benefits of their work tend to far exceed the amount they can make that way.
Right now, I believe that it makes sense to focus on building more funds for marketing and dev work right now. This could also be done via changes to the base inflation rates in a hardfork, but using posts allows for more flexible voting by the stakeholders, without requiring code changes and a hardfork, and it allows direct voting by stakeholders versus delegated voting via witnesses. You seem to think there is something sacred about the current hardcoded ratios for rewards, but that's just not the case. They were arbitrary numbers almost pulled out of a hat, but that was never a real problem for Hive, because post voting allows for more flexibility about where the rewards go, based on current conditions.
Also, as I have been clear from the beginning if you've read my early posts, I've never considered social media posts to be the primary purpose of Hive. It is a cool aspect, but I believe Hive has a much more useful future than just that.
As a side note, I believe content creators will actually earn more in the long run by funding more marketing and dev efforts, rather than just upvoting the current relatively small number of content creators, because we'll end up with a more valuable token to distribute.
I didn't actually notice that, as hive.blog doesn't show it AFAICT. Another case where a little more dev work would be useful.
Unfortunately, neither is the blockchain or the stakeholders. You may scare away some people who've just joined Hive and don't know who to believe, but are predisposed to believe the guy who claims the other guys are behaving badly. Beyond that, I suspect it is a wash.
It's actually the perceived and very real oligarchy this system creates and the fact that 1 downvote can not only wipe out the will of many, but essentially limit the exposure of the content that scares away many.
An equivalent is a Twitter or Facebook shadowban, which is viewed by many to be the same difference as a collapsed post or comment(I've never seen such a post trend, have you?). If this type of post scares off potential users, then it's because they don't agree with the reality.
I'm on many blockchain platforms populated mostly by those who don't like steem or hive specifically because of what I mention in the 1st paragraph. That's a lot of ex, but mostly potential users that have been lost, because the same web2 crap happens here, just in a slightly different way.
Instead of accepting this, we as one of the first cutting edge Web3 platforms should be trying to find a solution to the problem. Unfortunately, those who benefit most, like yourself and the other ideological downvoters, tend to see everything as just fine.
The fact is, it's no different than the US Congress continuing to work for themselves, instead of the people. Perceived or not by those who can institute solutions, like yourself, it affects more users than you know. This in effect affects the growth of the platform.
Previously, upvotes were used for funding things.
The DHF was created to be the mechanism that now is supposed to be used to funds things.
Now we have the DHF. If things need funded it should go through the DHF.
People can still upvote whatever they want.
The DHF is already funding the HBD Stabilzer for 67,000 HBD a day. Upvoting HBD Funder comments only looks to bring in 10k HBD a day(50/50 split between the upvoters and HBD Funder). So HBD Funder needs 5k more USD a day.
The request should be changed to 72,000 HBD a day.
The upvoters who were upvoting HBD Funder can now go and upvote people who write posts instead of upvoting a comment to fund something(because that's what the DHF is for).
Again, I will ask the question that so far has not receieved a satisfactory answer, why not increase the HBD Funder proposal to 72,000 HBD/day? I would vote for that and most people probably would too.
That is just your opinion. There was never any claim when the DHF was created that posts could no longer be used to fund develop. In fact, some stakeholders like transisto believe that ONLY posts should be used to develop software and for makreting efforts. Personally, I think both have their uses.
And again, I will answer the question: because I want to increase the amount of funding available in the DHF for future development. Increasing the HBD funder proposal will not achieve the same effect to the same degree.
Yes, that's why I said should though, I am not saying it "has to". From a design and system perspective that is what it is for.
I can see a problem with this type of thing in that people with lots of money coming into Hive, or people who have lots of money currently, just upvoting it for easy APR. There is always the downvote as a check/balance to keep someone like Haejin or Rancho Relaxo doing that(though they seem to upvote random things on Trending to get around being downvoted in return).
I can see both sides to this, so I am not one way or the other in particular on that issue. I've said that we need to have more funding for Hive/marketing so that is always good, building the ecosystem is good. I don't particularly see the need for a stablecoin made in the way HBD is made, as I am mainly in the Ethereum camp and am pro DAI and other stablecoins. As things progress forward with Dexes and cheaper fees I can see Ethereum/Polygon/BSC having options that are more useful for Hive than HBD. I've separately written a different comment before on how Hive could be distributed for DHF proposals and sold at market prices in other stable coins that are locked in contracts(someone has to write this obviously) instead of having HBD as the funding curency for the DHF. This would have the added benefit of more Hive getting into the hands of minnows/new people joining as the price point would be pushed down with the consistent downward pressue.
For consistency I would like to see everyone trying to encourage all funding stuff to go to the DHF, instead of upvoting comments. The large upvotes on the comments doesn't exactly go against POB, because POB is a very general and encompassing term. I would say it WOULD go against POB if the comments were purely spam and didn't help the ecosystem in any way, but the HBD Funder does help the ecosystem. It's in a sort of weird grey area in my mind, but I wouldn't downvote the HBD Funder comments myself, that's just my view.
I don't see any risk of it being upvoted just for easy APR. As I mentioned elsewhere, I could achieve the same or better "easy APR" by randomly following a voting trail (something I believe a lot of large stakeholders do, because it gets hard to distribute rewards from a large stake effectively once your stake gets too large). As it is, my APR for curation rewards is a little smaller than if I followed a trail, but I consider it worth it because I'm a strong believer in building up more funding for future marketing and development.
The mechanism that Hive lacks right now is a way for stakeholders to dynamically vote for how inflation is directed. Those numbers are currently hardcoded and can only be changed by a hardfork. A long time ago, @smooth suggested we have a mechanism that allowed for this, and I've always liked that idea, but like all changes it would require more work and testing and could result in unexpected problems. I've always considered voting for posts and comments that fund marketing and development as a good compromise on that idea, because it doesn't require code changes.
I spoke with Smooth about this question of dynamic inflation pools only a few days ago at some length. He said he still thought it was a good idea but that he didn't think any decision makers in Hive were interested in it. I put a strong case for implementing something that regulates the public image of the reward pool on Hive and ensures that percentages allotted to each category of reward are adhered to. People look at investment trackers to identify projects to put funds into and they often list the percentages that Hive pays to witnesses, the reward pool and the DHF. If potential new investors look at those percentages, decide they like them but then come here and find out that the reality is quite different - with developers syphoning funds from author rewards into developer rewards - many will just drop hive into the 'scam' bucket that they are primed to do with all projects they investigate because so many really are scammy.
Overcoming the negative PR accrued by Hive due to Steem and other reasons is going to require intense focus on every single 'small' opportunity to tick all the boxes of people who check Hive out. I have a hell of a time getting anyone new to come from web 2.0 to Hive at the moment.. It was similar with Steem, but actually even harder with Hive. As a marketer, I will say clearly here that no stone can be left unturned when dealing with these issues.
Assuming your numbers are accurate, it shouldn't have been hard to do a rough approximation from the data you have already generated (the data is quite transparent). Why didn't you figure out an approximate answer instead of just leaving the question hanging and generating undue doubt? Could it be because that this kind of questioning rhetoric is more effective at persuading the uninformed than the actual data?
I paid someone to run python stuff to get the data out, because this stuff isn't accessible to non-coders.
All that I had him focus on was the hbd.funder account - not the whole history of Hive or something.
The $30,000,000 in rewards I mentioned was simply pulled from multiple big names saying that in their New Year's posts.
Again, nice try at making it look like I did something sketchy or sneaky.
Your coder could have probably done the extra work in less than an hour. He still could. It's not the whole history of hive, it's just a matter of pulling the price of hive on that date for each reward and multiplying it by the amount.