Hi to you,
very interesting to follow the comments underneath your article. I would like to give you my personal view on this.
The question is in principle, how are the witnesses paid and by whom? If there is no hierarchy, i.e. no official company that offers employees or, for that matter, freelancers a contract that both parties can rely on, the payment model is uncertain.
The witness must then simultaneously look for other ways of earning money in addition to contributing his technical skills in order to be compensated for his efforts. At least that is how I understand the whole thing here.
If no one enters into a binding contract with anyone, no one has any reliability to expect from anyone. The individual is thrown back on himself, which he naturally tries to compensate for. The witnesses who have found a way to balance their costs and energy input do so through, for example, their blog and its payouts and through the founding of groups, so-called communities. Someone who has to look after himself, without the usual hierarchy and given security of a structure according to the usual contractual conditions, must behave selfishly if he sees no other way.
The first witnesses have ensured that their established interest groups always remain stable and have created the illusion that it is the community that decides on the value of a publication. Of course, this is not quite true, because neither ocd nor curie or curangel, for example, have a specification of what exactly is voted up. The matter is quite vague, because it can be anything. The lack of specialisation in, for example, literature or art, photography or craft, etc. is precisely what the big drivers lack, but they nevertheless appropriate all categories for themselves without standing for a specific category.
Therefore, the other-interest groups are competition as long as they grow and receive support from competing single whales. How undesirable it is for something new to emerge, for diverse categories and interest groups to form independently and with financial success, can be seen in the fact that, for example, newcomers to the platform are immediately fished out by those whose pool is already very large. As a newcomer, you are initially flattered by such a surprisingly large upvote total. Then, after the introduction post, the cent amounts that flow in through blogging lead the user to search for the fattest sinecures, and he naturally finds them in the largest interest groups and curation trails.
It's all quite normal and basically no one is to blame for the way things are. It is probably a reflection of our times that a public platform based on electricity and computer technology does not know or need corporate governance. All it needs is participation and transactions. In the process, content is basically overcome, in other words: it matters little what one posts, only that one posts. A certain superficial standard can be attached to this, such as the length, illustration and popularity of a topic. Just like a respected voting behaviour and so-called engagement among users.
That it won't grow here is uncertain, but I share the scepticism about it, insofar as nothing changes in the person structure of the top witnesses and the efforts to keep their own communities at the top end. I don't even know to what extent these people even know or coordinate with each other and whether they are able to really step out of their own perspective or whether they are too dependent on it. I guess it depends on whether running a Blokchain is their only source of income and they pay their rent and living expenses from it in the real world.
I think it is true what some people interested in the future have said: the media person stands alone in the media world, he has no binding contract with anyone, he is exposed to the arbitrariness of the algorythms and the automatic processes without really finding a contact person who feels responsible. It all gives the appearance of a sense of responsibility, but it merely reflects the problem the individual already has vis-à-vis the corporations: There is no one to grab hold of to formulate any claims when it comes to cross-border, non-local, non-physically real entities. The existing legislation that protects employees at work, for example, does not exist here. It is basically a lawless space, a new Wild West, but quite different from the one we know from the touchable reality.
Greetings.
They are paid by the Hive protocol. Their payment structure is consistent they get a certain % of the yearly inflation. There are a few problems with the current model. Putting politics aside (who determines who the 21 witnesses are), the 21 top witnesses accrue a lot of the inflation, which is economically not ethical. While in other systems it's much more fair like in proof of work, and soon ethereum proof of stake is most fair.
Yep, the witnesses haven't changed much in 4 years, which are signs to be worried about.
Thank you for your answer.
If the Hive currency falls in value, so you get less for Hive than you did before, does that mean that witnesses then get less or more revenue with a higher inflation rate? I don't understand the issue in this context. To me, inflation casually means that I can buy less from the same money. Why is the payment model linked to the inflation rate at all, has anyone explained that? I am aware of payment models that can be agreed between client and contractor or employee, for example, on a commission or profit basis, but I am not familiar with income linked to inflation.
each day there is more Hive made. A part of this goes to the witnesses and a part goes to authors and a part goes to hive holders.
The lower the value of hive, the less witnesses and authors will get = risk that the blockchain will not be secured and authors leaving the platform.
Hmm ... that doesn't necessarily apply to me personally, as an author and holder of hive shares. If I don't determine a time period within which I want to earn, say, so-and-so much revenue, and therefore the fluctuating value for me is merely a reflection of things trading high at times and low at times, I guess I'm part of it more in the way that I could care less about those fluctuations, since I'm not considering an exchange into fiat money or other cryptocurrencies. Away from the substantive arguments about engagement, voting behaviour and social interactions, I see my activity here also as self-documentation. To the extent that I am able to separate my articles from the number value they achieve and there are still plenty of others who handle it similarly to me, I am happy with that.
Now, I haven't specifically taken money into my hands to invest either, so I'm not so much straightforward about a return of investment. There is no cost recovery calculation on my side, such as recouping the energy and maintenance costs for a server and generating something on top.
On the one hand, I am grateful to the witnesses, without them the whole thing would not work, but on the other hand, I see the potential for conflict when I have the impression that the individual key players are not handing over their positions to those who have come after them and are in this way benevolently passing on the baton of responsibility.
Behind this is the presumably philosophical question of whether I as a human being am prepared not only to accept but even to encourage a change in my living and income circumstances. Wanting to achieve the much-invoked passive earnings, so to speak for life, is, with all understanding for such a seductive possibility, often a horse's foot.
As always, no one can be forced or carried to a realisation. This happens of its own accord. Or not.
I think your correct in your assessment @erh.germany (and I will add... eloquently spoken as usual!).
@futurethinker you put your thumb on the issue stemming from how the witness's are determined and how the inflation is allocated.
How this could be rectified?
I think that John Maxwell sums things up best. I actually heard John talk about this live and it has stuck with me ever since.
The Leadership Lid: