What other solution is there ... ?
I still would have the idea to implement two different reward pools, one for 'stakers' and one for real curators and authors.
I think if someone considers themselves purely as investor they should be able to just stake HIVE in order to earn interest but after this decision shouldn't (be able to) upvote (or downvote) posts anymore which anyway they didn't read at all.
However, the ones who would choose to be in the curator/author pool should have to do real curation work which would mean to seek, actually read, evaluate and manually upvote posts that they really like.
That wouldn't completely solve all problems (for example some whales might decide to go for the curator/author pool, even if staking would be more beneficial for these users with huge stakes), but as we are 'brainstorming' here I wanted to mention this idea.
That seems like a great option to help decentralize the stake at least.
I know over the years, I've had many people who were convinced by the idea of steem/hive, but then quickly turned off by the idea that they had to take on a part time job as a curator to have their investment not be forever losing it's relative stake.
I think that would ultimately lead to an undesired effect for most content creators. Large stakeholders who use both their up and down votes are doing so because they've read the post. They would want to be in the curator pool, not the hands-off investment pool. The only difference would be that the auto-votes from the hands-off stakeholders would be gone, which would ultimately mean that there would be fewer upvotes on content.
Sorry to see the downvotes in your comment. I think in case of different points of views or preferences both sides should abstain from using flags for attacking purposes (I would prefer to read good arguments).
If less than seven days old I would upvote your comment.
So you think that for example @the-maximizer-everyday-one-short-post-mark reads at least 2 % of the posts which he and his buildwhale are autovoting?
Concerning the downvotes, I am not against downvotes, but I don't like at all that a huge number of downvotes are 'granted' due to disagreement on opinon or retaliation reasons. Furthermore rather often there is no thoughts exchange between downvoter and author in these cases. What I mean is that for example before I stopped posting on HIVE I had that soccer result prediction competition which brought many people to HIVE. The winner of every match day should write a comment, which I upvoted with 100 % (as reward not for writing the comment but for analyzing the games correctly and winning the matchday). These upvotes made people stay involved who couldn't win the main prize anymore. Then
@usainvote (an anonymous, intransparent account with a big delegation from @blocktrades) started to flag all these comments, and it was not possible to get in touch with he/she/it. Participants left the prediction game and got inactive in HIVE, and I withdrew from organizing the competition (thanks to @reiseamateur to continue my work).
Furthermore, whales are often too lazy to really check themselves whom they flag and why. When my latest chess post (over a year ago) suddenly got flagged from @theycallmedan (which I respect a lot as he really bought his stake instead of being just early miner or former bid bot owner) I was really surprised as he actually likes chess. When I asked him he told me it wasn't himself who had flagged me but @themarkymark who was using his posting key (and who was angry that I had muted him, even if he pretended the reason was that my post was over rewarded - opposite to his own autovoted minimal effort short posts, lol).
In favour of @theycallmedan I have to add that he removed the flag again.
Lol, lets wait and see if due to my mentions the expected retaliation flags will come in. :-)
There could be an incentive that the larger your stake the more beneficial it would be to be in the stake pool. For example by implementing a higher author reward compared to curation reward (most whales prefer passive income over the work of creating content). Or simply by a curve causing that curation reward wouldn't rise proportional to HIVE power (which also would help against centralization of HIVE concerning the control over the content) but staking rewards in the stake pool still would.
I would prefer to see fewer upvotes in case every upvote would mean the voter really valued what he did upvote before, even if that would be a comment 'only', but a comment they had read before upvoting.
If fewer upvotes would mean that good content could be trending then in the long term that would contribute to the value of HIVE.
Greetings from your old friend, the HIVE quitter but now Splinterlands whale (which is by the way far more decentralized concerning different rather big stakeholders than HIVE). :)
P. S.: Even if I criticize HIVE a lot I think that so far all alternatives are even worse. From a technological point of view HIVE is far superior than everything else (I wonder how advanced the planned social networks based on Cardano and Solana will be, but ... they are not yet available).
I know a small German politics forum which might close soon due Impressum issues. Do you believe? I suggested the migration to ... HIVE which is still pending, and which I would support in case they will choose this option ... crazy me, lol.
It's funny you think I give a shit you muted me or that I even knew that you did. I see you still droning on about the same bs as always.
Hallo, wie geht's dir, alter Freund?
Solltest du an einer ernsthaften Diskussion interessiert sein, würde ich mich sogar dazu bequemen, Englisch mit dir zu sprechen.
Gabba goolie goo?
Ja ... Alles wird bald gut, kleiner Mark! :)
Oh my, you down voting all my posts and comments, however will I survive.
As I said before.
See, @guiltyparties, little vindictive @themaximark jumped in with his flags even faster than expected, q. e. d., ... so predictable ... :)
I flagged a $15 post that was a mistake that you even told people to flag. Which you responded by downvoting all mine, so I returned the favor.
I knew that would be your excuse, but: you also flagged every of my comments in this post (for example in my conversation with @lemouth) FIRST before I reacted.
Why, just why are you always that dishonest?
P. S.: Blockchain doesn't lie!
Lol timestamps don’t lie unlike you.
You are just funny: you know very well that you flagged my comments before I flagged yours. Period.