This is the consensus layer, which is the way things get built. Users can and have affected this.
If this is the consensus layer then we are talking about running a witness outside the 21, which probably is what we can assume what we both mean at the moment. If there was no big change while I was away, then every witness outside the top 21 are as stand in witnesses. They either get no rewards or very low rewards. This is what makes hive not decentralized, because 21 witnesses are doing the consensus while the other witnesses are backups. Only 21 witnesses will keep accruing more Hive, so the rich get richer. While the poor literally get poorer, because they have to pay electricity bills and have zero to non incentive to spin a witness node.
That would be the decision of the stake, something most stake won't make, since they don't have to and, can earn more voting manually if they choose. Your point is a non event.
Back in my day in OCD and curie, there were only 3 to 10 people who determined what gets a vote. I am pretty sure this is the same for other curation guilds. You don't agree on this?
Not it is not. It is based on centralized algorithms optimized for a pay-per-click model for advertising revenue.
It is a mix, but true viral content can't be paid for. And this is the same as in Hive. But the problem is nobody is really incentivized to create good content for the masses because, the rewards are determined by big curation guilds and whales.
So far, what you have mentioned sounds very much like someone who hasn't spent much time here and, someone who isn't actually interested in the future of the industry.
This is the third time I am hearing this. You would be surprised how much I care about the future of blockchains, and good blockchains in their nature have a good incentive system + community. Neglecting the economic incentives part is the same as neglecting throwing away a blockchain. Which I see many hivers do, they are focussed on "community", it is important, but if the incentives are not there your community will not stay.
Can I turn your comment around and say: it seems that every outsider is told by the hive insiders that they don't understand the hive blockchain. People even use this argument to Dan who was the whole architect of this system (see the video if you havent). What if you have been in an echo chamber because you haved lived too long in the community, and you can't see outside? Can you truly say you see more than me, if you haven't ventured into other blockchains other than Hive? Unlike me who ventured into other blockchains and made buck there, and I probably didnt make millions by luck. I know the answer to this question, as lived a long time in this community.
I don't see any long position in Hive, and it just saddens me to see people like you putting so much effort into this chain, while you would be better economically off (and probably community wise) on other chains.
It is not like the top 20 witnesses and the community have hit the snooze button since the split away from Steem. Hive you see today is a lot different under the hood than Steem and a lot of improvements have been made to make it work more efficiently and quicker too.
Dan was the architect of Steem, but he has not touched Hive or responsible of anything that is built on Hive since the split. It is unfair to give him credit for things he had no business in.
When it comes to curation guilds. There are far more than just 2 big ones. Many of which operate on different frontends and in different tokens tied to HIVE too.
5-10 people? I think it is a lot more combined across all the guilds and groups. @curangel alone has 23+ curators who are actively curating a bunch of posts each every day.
It doesn't take away that he understand the fundamentals of hive, and what is wrong. The fundamentals will always stay the same, until this blockchain does not become DPOS. I am not giving him credit for anything (that's a spinoff of what I am writing, probably the echo chamber around here). I am saying he made the fundamentals.
even if it would be 50 people or 100 people, they would be choosing what content deserves attention for the thousands of others. This is not real decentralization and fair.
Dan is just one person. There are many smart people out there working the problems and looking for improvements. Hive is alive system that keeps growing and evolving with time. You are basically saying that Hive is hopeless and that everyone should abandon it. Luckily, not everyone agrees with it.
What would be fair? Is it fair on other platforms? There are influencers out there that are earning millions while most other people barely scrape by. Is that fair? Don't the influencers affect what deserves attention for thousands of others? I don't know if you fully understand how attention based economy works out there.
Also, don't you remember when OCD started out, its purpose was to look for newbies and show them to the public. I don't understand how you can say that the curation guilds are some sort of communist parties that promote whatever they want.
Not every person on Hive will go an vote only posts on trending. Hell, I have been on Hive for over 4 years and I don't go and upvote all the posts on trending. Plus, there are communities where people can follow the content creators that are writing about stuff that interest them.
On other platforms you are barely a visitor, you can be muted or removed any second by corporate overlords.
On Hive people own the platform and no one will kick them off the platform.
You want to control more what happens on Hive and the direction it goes, buy more Hive or contribute in other ways.
Time will tell <3.
I genuinely hope I am wrong for Hive.
Are you really tryin to say I can't post about this subject (semi-censorship) LOL. To be honest I have no interest in spending any resources in Hive, I'm posting here to give my thoughts on why this chain is failing. Or if you would like my thoughts on this chain.
All love @m31 <3
No, what I said was, that is the way DPOS works. More stake = more influence. Is all.
And the chain isn't failing.
I think we're closing in on 100 these days.