I vote for the stabilizer because these funds ultimately go to the DHF so that the chain can build up enough of a war chest to support more development. I believe the future of Hive depends on increasing the amount of development that is done, and the blocktrades development team, as strong as it is, can only contribute so much.
These seem like valid reasons to support the project.
As @smooth has pointed out, I make the same curation rewards regardless of which posts I vote for (as long as those posts aren't actively downvoted, of course). If you check my curation rewards on something like hivestats.io, you'll actually find that my curation rewards tend to be a little lower than the optimal return. I haven't really bothered to analyze why.
My point here wasn't anything to do with higher or lower curation rewards - but the fact that curating usually spreads stake out - by giving it to the authors. In this case, you and OCDB and the others are able to maintain the same curation rewards for yourself, without giving a penny to anyone else. That's the definition of centralizing.
You're trying to argue that voting this way somehow builds (or at least maintains) my percentage of the stake, but that's not how it works: my stake erodes via the inflation regardless of whether it goes to the DHF account or to any other account. This is basic math. If you believe you can demonstrate otherwise, please show your work.
I just addressed part of this directly above - your relative stake is being protected, by not giving author rewards to users, and even moreso by instead sending all of that to the "DHF," which you pretty much single-handedly control at this point.
TLDR; I vote this way not to maximize my personal stake percentage (this doesn't do that), but because I believe it is the most beneficial thing for the long term viability of the network right now. It doesn't take a lot of effort to see that it is the work being done by devs that is bringing new users to the network.
I'm not claiming to know your intentions, I don't know you at all.
The point of my post was to shine some light on the utter hilarity of curangel & ocdb zeroing out posts, negging out people's reputations, and always chanting about how they're doing it to "protect the rewards pool" and limit "over-rewarded content."
The fact is, Nothing changed from Steem to Hive, except that StInc & Ned were replaced by you and your team.
Still just an oligarchy, pretending to be decentralized, and actively driving away all the content side of things at this point (which seems much better for your stake and the blockchain anyway)
DHF give funds to developers, marketers, some sort of charity thing I'm not familiar with, etc. which also spreads stake out, to the extent that they don't sell it (which is equally true of post payouts).
Really shows how clueless you are. @blocktrades has been voting for the spanish community up until some time ago and only had about 50% VP for @hbdstabilizer, now he's still supporting the Haveyoubeenthere community.
@ocdb only throws a few votes on hbd.funder because price went up a lot while new content creators and content hasn't increased that much and we don't want to just give authors unrealistic high rewards as mentioned in this comment that was placed before this idiotic post insinuating bullshit like usual.
But hey, anything goes as long as it fits your narrative I guess.
just because he has a big say on which proposals the DHF funds go to doesn't mean they're going to him nor does it mean proposals couldn't get funded without his vote.
I never made any claims about how much of OCDB's votes were being used here (though it's MANY thousands of $s per week.)
As for BT, I was just looking at his recent voting activity, which is mostly these spam comments - and I said such.
Never made that claim anywhere, don't believe I even implied it anywhere.
Are there any proposals that are funded, that do not have his support?
Have there ever been?
(Curious - guessing the answer is no, at least not since the counter-proposal was put in)
Are you okay?
Replying to this - in case Hive's threading starts breaking down here.
There's no contradiction there, those are two different contexts.
You get your full curation rewards for every hbdfunder comment you upvote.
I didn't say it's the only thing you upvote.
Yes @peakd never had the vote of @blocktrades and many other whales but it was the most voted proposal ever to exist (number of voters) and got funded for a large portion of its run (not all of it) but most of it.
Maybe expand on content you vote?
From the outside looking in, It just looks like a circle jerk. Must cost a fortune on tissue. Judging by the amount it brings back.
Remember. These things were not implemented by consensus, It was decided in a closed room and only put out once there was an assurance of who would be able to make use of it. Just look at who gets funded,
The same for the thousands of HBD paid out to perform tasks that were left wayside once payment made.
The problem is. If anyone brings anything like this to the attention of a population, There is no debate about it or discussion. There is no, Can we resolve this.
The one who made the statement gets attacked. One side is just too defensive to have a discussion. Or is it they do not want open discussion because of what may be revealed.
Defence and justification of something does not make it right.
These seems to be plenty of discussion, just no agreement.
Agreement won't be found. There is a lack of understanding on many things.
Discussion is needed. It is useless though without understanding.
I don't have a fraction of the stake that was owned by Steemit and Ned, and you can do some basic math and see that I don't have control over the DHF. No one does, the stake is too spread out in Hive.
I have voted for proposals that didn't get funded and there are several proposals right now that I'm not voting for that are funded. You could have spent 5 minutes checking the votes on the currently approved proposals and figured this out.
In fact, the one proposal I did create, to fund the work we did to setup the imagehoster during Hive's launch, didn't get fully funded. It took 3 days to get enough votes, so we didn't receive 3K of the 53K we asked for, IIRC).
Sorry, that's not what I was trying to say there (or really compare you to Ned - that was just all bad, my apologies.)
My point was that you and your team are (afaik) doing the vast majority of the actual Hive (not L2/sidechain) development, correct?
If I'm not mistaken, there are currently 5 (out of 14) funded proposals that you aren't supporting, and 100% of the non-funded proposals you aren't supporting.
It looks like your vote is more than 50% of the return proposal's support as well.
The funded proposals have a high ~43M HP voting for them, and you vote with 15M.
That's more than a third of the peak (don't know what % of the total) HP that votes on proposals.
TCMD votes with a little over 5M (so he's down closer to 11% of the peak), and there's a few folks with 1-3 million.
Not trying to attack you specifically/personally, you just happen to have the biggest voting stake around for this stuff, and if we're talking about centralization of stake at the moment.
Obviously, just as in the case of witnesses, getting more people to vote with their stake (never mind staking more), and be more active about adjusting their votes, is one of the big changes that can be made.
We do the majority of the work on hived currently, but @howo also contributes. But that is mostly a meaningless metric, IMO. The major focus of our work on hived has been to move future develop primarily to layer 2, with layer 1 acting as efficient and secure base layer. In fact, the Blocktrades team members are already spending more time on layer 2 work now (e.g HAF and HAF-based apps) than they do on layer 1 work.
As a snapshot in time, that is correct, but I've supported several proposals that didn't get funded or lost funding. They just expired, as proposals tend to do if they don't get funded. If you looked at other voters on the proposals, I suspect you'll see statistics similar to mine.
But the total HP (148M currently) is a much more important number, not the current amount of active voters (at least to the extent that the HP isn't dead stake, and there is plenty of evidence that very little HP stake is dead).
Just because HP holders aren't voting currently, doesn't mean they can't start voting at any time they disagree with the current status of funded and unfunded proposals. That is a more realistic limit on my voting power and if I abused it, that is how it would be restrained.
Don't believe me? Then look at how much "non-voting" stake suddenly starting voting during the Justin Sun debacle on Steem.
When people are generally happy with the status quo, they often don't vote as much, because they don't have a strong opinion on many issues being voted on, and they trust the opinions of those who are more actively engaged and experienced on the topics being voted on. IMO, that's a very logical way to act: I leave decisions to others at my company who are more aware of the ins-and-outs of particular issues all the time.
But when voters become unhappy, then you see voters become more active (assuming voting isn't being suppressed artificially by threats of physical violence and/or imprisonment, as you see in some countries nowadays).
And the lesson of the Steem voting war brings home another point: the voting stake of importance is not just currently vested Hive. In the case of strong disagreement like we saw during the voting war, liquid stake matters too, because it can also be converted to voting stake in a relatively short time (30 days nowadays).
god damn...
It looks like somebody hasn't been paying attention.
But BTW, complaining about someone else’s upvoting or downvoting is utterly pointless. People can upvote or downvote for ANY reason. Their stake, their choice. It’s not rocket science.
Interesting isn't it, that when I start downvoting these copypasted comments, suddenly it's treated as an attack on the DHF and on Hive and on Blocktrades - and not just a "disagreement about rewards"
The term is rules for thee, but not for me.