Why not just ask for 10k more per day in funding proposal instead of getting 10k from upvoted comments tho?
My guess = because that doesn't have 50% curation rewards.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Why not just ask for 10k more per day in funding proposal instead of getting 10k from upvoted comments tho?
My guess = because that doesn't have 50% curation rewards.
As stated elsewhere, it doesn't matter what someone votes for in terms of curation, as long as it isn't being heavily downvoted. Curation rewards are just for participation. Once you factor in someone's stake, their curation rewards are largely fixed, as long as they bother to vote.
If you don't like this, you'll need more downvoting so curation rewards actually reflect voting in accordance with stakeholder consensus on the best use for rewards. I'm all in favor of that, as you know.
And as I've stated in response many times, and nobody has addressed, the big difference is that by voting on content, stake is decentralized because half goes to the authors, while in this case y'all are able to maintain your 50% curation, AND keep the rest by sending it all to the "fund," where just a couple accounts (the ones upvoting these spam comments) decide how it's rewarded.
It's just self-voting with extra steps.
That's not correct.
First, it isn't true that only a few accounts decide where DHF funds go. If you look at the level of voting necessary to fund something, it is far more than a few accounts. It takes 29 million HP to fund anything, and the largest account is 15 million and it drops off quickly from there. There has never been a DHF proposal approved by only a few accounts and there likely never will. It is always a broad swath of stakeholders voting.
Second if you look at the where the DHF funds are going none of them support the or even benefit the largest stakeholders, with the possible exception of one that is supporting the SPK network (I'm not an expert on what this does and I don't vote for it). They're all supporting developers, community projects, or platform resources (such as Keychain or HiveSQL) in a very clear way. Notably, the largest voter (@blocktrades) probably also spends the most supporting the platform (including much of the core development, and running the servers), and hasn't even gotten funding from the DHF for it.
In no way is any of this self-voting. The necessity of DHF proposals to clear the hurdle of the return proposal makes self voting MUCH harder and less likely (and much, much less frequent in practice), compared to the post voting where self-voting or circle voting or vote trading is trivial, and only sometimes (rarely in practice) inhibited by downvotes.
I just skimmed through the voters on the active proposals and many of them are there because of votes from less than 10 accounts. Some of them might be there anyway due to attracting lots of smaller votes. I don't really have full data on the decentralisation of the proposal voting - I might add it to Hive Alive when I get time.
It's certainly true that my perception of the worker pool is based on information from earlier in Hive's journey - at that time it was exactly as I described, nothing got in without a small number of whales voting for it.
I essentially agree with this. I don't know how deliberate this outcome is and I don't think @blocktrades exactly needs more cash to the extent that they would shut down opportunities for developers - HOWEVER, at least based on historic outcomes, I haven't ever even planned to launch a proposal in Hive because the main gatekeepers to which proposals get funded seem to be operating in a centralised/cliquey way. Perhaps I am wrong and we are only ever seeing a snapshot of a situation via posts online. This is part of why regular video chats are so essential and so missing on Hive - from what I've seen. It's very easy to fill in the gaps with our imagination and reach wrong conclusions when all we see of some people is a few paragraphs of text.
In any case, I don't think having the author rewards pool returned to the proposals pool in a way that bypasses witness consensus is in the spirit of how Hive is designed. Granted, stakeholders have the ability to do that, but it definitely does seem off.
There is nothing in the "spirit of how Hive is designed" (or Steem before) that is contradictory with posts being voted to support development work, marketing, promotions, platform resources, or other such efforts. The original Steem white paper discusses "subjective proof of work" where stakeholders vote to allocate funding to "work", the determination of the value of which is entirely subjective, including examples of supporting charities or political agendas. It was never and was never intended to be only about content.
Prior to the DHF, voting individual post payouts was the only way of funding such efforts. The DHF adds another mechanism to handle these sorts of things (with a significant benefit being that it is easier to define a specific budget and payment schedule for a project, as opposed to the rather erratic way that post payouts do, both of which were recognized as major logistical obstacles with funding larger or longer term efforts through posts), but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with using the original method to fund these things, including by sending that through the DHF (and thereby gaining access to the budgeting and payment scheduling system).
When I referred to the spirit of how Hive is designed, I was referring to the deliberate inclusion of a worker pool, designed to fund projects - alongside an author pool, designed to fund authors (of content). Granted, software can be content and can be subjectively valued, thus upvoted from the author pool - but as you have pointed out, that approach is shaky and not really fit for purpose.. Which is why we have the worker proposal pool.
Well that's fine, but this isn't Steem and almost every time I quote from the Steem whitepaper I get shot down by the authors of the Hive whitepaper who say 'This isn't Steem. Get over it'.
Yes, there is nothing that stops people upvoting software projects or infrastructure facilitation and yes that's how things were often done on Steem. However, I'm just pointing out that trying to correct a core failure of the blockchain to regulate HBD using a pool that isn't really meant to be for that use is always going to cause some controversy, especially among content creators.
It is well known in business/marketing psychology that people will care much more about losing something than they do about gaining something. This isn't an opinion of mine, but established scientific consensus based on numerous experiments. For this reason alone it is important to have clean lines in terms of the usage of reward pools. I am saying this from the perspective of personally knowing numerous medium sized web personalities (and many other smaller ones) who refuse to use Hive because of the perception they have of all of this stuff (which didn't come from me telling them btw - I actively encourage people to use Hive, including writing a full user guide for new users).
Ultimately, the big stakeholders will do what they want and will get the outcome as a result. I'm just offering my insights as a professional business systems engineer and digital marketer with a strong focus in psychology. Every time I have spoken up from this perspective, the Hive crowd has heckled and shut me down at key moments. In most of these cases time has proven me to be correct, e.g. the naming of Hive being controversial for numerous reasons and also causing an SEO failure due to the high competitiveness for all relevant keyphrases.. Differentiation is the magic of marketing.
What if a bunch of big whales buy into Hive and literally do nothing but massively upvote their own pet projects? They would dominate the reward pool and totally break POB in every way - but most especially in it's value as a marketing device.
I agree it is not Steem but I don't agree that means the entire subjective rewarding pool concept has been transformed into all content and nothing but content. That never happened.
If they own it, at least in a dominant way, they can do as they like. If there are other stakeholders who don't agree, they can downvote. I've always maintained that downvoting is essential to establishing a consensus on how the reward pool is to be directed, otherwise it all a shitshow of stakeholders, big and small, voting their own pet projects (including recurrent "content" posts, which is a form of pet project, after all), and which often doesn't benefit the broader platform very much.
The current authors of the Hive Whitepaper like to sell the idea (which most people never agreed to) that Hive as a mechanism to reward content is wrong and that actually it is a more diverse platform which shouldn't be thought of as a way to reward even content. I find this totally insane, but that's what they have said to me. I didn't even bother going into why that doesn't make sense because the reasons are so obvious and despite one of them making a show of saying he'd do a meeting with me to discuss the relevant details, he just paid lip service in private and never did a meeting.
I don't pretend to know exactly what is going or why because there are too many people involved and I don't have all the information. I am, however, used to creating and marketing large systems which share that same problem and in general the way to deal with it most effectively is to capitalise on 'code is law' and to build in clear and transparent rules which prevent controversy that effects large numbers of people personally and thus helps sustain morale and sentiment. People are too used to being fully financially exploited and enslaved in the offline world to be ready to trust that any project like this simply won't repeat that same pattern. Great care needs to be taken (much more than has been so far) to address this marketing chasm.
Since I am on this topic, I spoke personally to Steemit inc's marketing guy for a while at Steemfest and was shocked at how totally unprepared for the role he was. It's good that we now have a pro marketing company in the US working on Hive, but User Experience goes far beyond what they are doing - it needs to start with the very core code of the blockchain and grow from there.
Yes and they can totally change Hive into something completely unrelated to it's stated intent - but it makes sense to take action to prevent this if we are to protect the TIME and investments made by 10s of thousands of people who bought into a concept that has specifically designated boundaries.