I can follow all the logic on both sides but for me it just gets weird understanding that you all still benefit greatly from curation in a big way while trying to stabilize rewards pool and increase funding for DHF. It gets weirdier seeing yall go after anti-government and anti-centralization content. From an outsiders view it seems yall are pro government and pro centralization.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The people voting for funds to the DHF would benefit the same for voting for anything else. The curation rewards are a non-issue: we get the same rewards either way (actually we tend to get a little less, because transisto is a large stakeholder who hates the DHF and therefore votes against the stabilizer comments). Like @notconvinced, he believes that devs should just make constant posts to get payments instead. IMO, that's completely impractical, however (see my response to him for more details on why).
FWIW, I believe it is important to have some form of organization of human effort. I just think all existing forms of that are deeply flawed and we need to search for better solutions. I've spent a lot of time thinking about the subject, so I even have some ideas nowadays about where we might start to look, but that's a topic for another time.
Hmm, how many curation projects did you pull out of and many authors did you stop supporting? I'm going to guess none to very few...
I don't really understand what you're trying to imply by your question. It should be obvious, that to the extent I'm voting for hbdfunder comments, I'm voting less for other authors. But a fair amount of my stake still votes on posts. I'm sure it is no secret that I vote heavily on marketing and software development posts related to Hive, for example.
The point is that possible curation returns does not equal actual curation returns, which should be obvious... Your statement below is just a rationale that doesn't quite apply to the conversation.
So,
I myself want to hear how we'll further decentralize the platform, but it seems few of those capable of doing so, yourself included aren't having that conversation.
Making Hive competitive against the web2 platforms is bringing more users in, but killing the quality. We need to get back to what makes us different, beyond earning and that's getting away from centralized control.
Since we are almost into our 3rd year and the steem witness votes for witnesses are still in use, I take this as you are reluctant to give up the power you've enjoyed. Or at least, those placed in positions to help YOU achieve your goals with Hive. You fill the number 1 spot, so are unlikely to loose your position in the top 20.
Which brings me to the fact that the top 20 consensus is the biggest obstacle to ever reaching decentralization. I hope you start getting into the decentralized state of mind or Hive's core concept will be lost.
I appreciate your time on the matter sir. I also understand the work all the witnesses are doing to progress hive. So thank you for your time for a small fish like me! I hope a solution is created to better bridge the community of hive with the important stake holders and witnesses that keep it all running.