On a soft level, the Hive Police has been using metrics like this for a rather long time already. You can make a very solid case to never let any influencer get a foothold on Hive using stats like this, they run a business and need to take money off the table after providing their work. But it's bloody wrong because markets are not big AMMs and we've seen prices rise, while more Hive was sold than bought in the past. It's about trust and deep value propositions. It's very romantic to idolize the big #hodler, I can see that, but it's not helpful for growth, and if we keep running around with four digits active wallets posting a day, rather three digits humans creating serious posts per day, it'll be negative growth that becomes the chokepoint of the Hive value.
Let me edit something in:
Edicted epitomizes a true owner, strategically selling Hive with the intention of repurchasing it at a more favorable price point should the market turn. His exuberant and passionate approach rallies and motivates others. Dan, another owner, allocates a substantial amount of Hive to enhance user value within the app, generating even greater buying pressure than what was previously expended on sales. This embodies the quintessential owner mentality.
When examining their retention rates, their statistics may appear unsatisfactory. However, it is essential to differentiate between investors and owners for a more accurate understanding. A majority of the mid-sized hardcore holders are investors who possess their investments but do not exhibit the qualities of web3 owners. To them, their coins are merely digital assets, rather than an extension of their identity.
Are you insinuating that I am part of the Hive Police for coming up with this metric?
I am sensing unhealthy undertones here.
Personally, I find it deeply offensive to be left out as an owner.
Let me see.
In the past year or so, who else has bought over a million coins, with cash outside the system, powered it up, to support an app they develop themselves, with no funding other than their own, to empower a sprouting community and grow the presence of modern social mediums?
That's not enough to be called an owner I see.
Hmm, not exactly. In truth, I hold you in high regard based on what I've observed thus far, and I sincerely hope your investment multiplies a hundredfold during the anticipated 2024 bull market surge.
As we cannot be omnipresent, everyone has to choose an area of focus. I've not been involved in anti-abuse, nor in the creation of useful Hive stats. Nevertheless, my heart is bleeding over all those people we lost to the toxicity surrounding reward disagreements. To me, it is obvious that we need to get rid of centralized forces surrounding the mining process, including downvotes, and make a swift overhaul of the reputation system in order to become what Hive has always been meant to be. People engage in free value exchange, community building, and harnessing beautiful ideas.
Just to let you know, I think downvotes have a damaging psychological effect and have personally never downvoted anything. I've even received literal death threats from a disgruntled user but did not downvote them.
Regarding the metric, it is not about abuse or anti-abuse. It's just an interesting metric and doesn't need to be taken any further than at face value.
As for my investment, I've said in some interviews recently, that I see it as a first in last out arrangement. I would like to see realised value only if everyone else (hopefully from liketu) sees their value grow as well. I truly believe helping community builders will ultimately help me, my investment, and the rest of Hive as well and this is why I don't weigh my voting decisions based on whether people are powering down or not. That would be stupid.
In terms of reputation, I've been working on a metric which measures the network topology of users and their influence in terms of meaningful connections to them (follows, votes, engagement etc.) I think this captures the idea of community building in a really healthy and good way, and again it's all stuff pulled from on-chain.
I'm calling this 'Aura' because I think the name describes itself suitably well and it will play a part in how Liketu will democratize the curation back to users who accrue more 'Aura' (the decentralizing forces you are hoping for).
If anything, I see "rent seeking" behaviour being problematic. One of my other on-chain metrics Brain Energy would suggest that for a true decentralized assessment of value and value exchange, we must encourage more individual participation in governance, instead of allocating that responsibility to a handful of people and taking passive income!
(This is sort of like rewarding [possibly] negative financial decision making)
Finally - I actually agree with most of your sentiments, and I believe that having meaningful analytics and stats can actually set the record straight. I know you mentioned that the Hive Police like to use these to justify their narratives - and may I kindly remind you again, that I do not consider myself part of that - I hope that having more comprehensive stats and analytics will actually empower people and show that perhaps their rewards are justified.
Just a quick note (encouragement perhaps?) of appreciation for investing your time to write this. Your account is new to me so I was very interested to read what your thoughts are on a very vital topic for our Hive blockchain. Thank you!
I'm still digesting this answer, really powerful statements.
We are agreed. You prompted the response, so well done on your part. Our Hive blockchain would be far better off, if the "adults in the room" could have just such honest and open discussions, as we can all witness here.
My $0.02. And worth every penny ... 😉
true!
cool comment - still downvotes are a vital part of self-regulation
how do you want to counter abuse especially in sucking out the reward pool - without downvotes ?
thanks :)
My comment does not imply that downvotes shouldn't exist. They are necessary for 'self-regulation.' but let's be clear about something - 'abuse' as many would espouse must be met with the same moral lens across all avenues in the ecosystem, and critically, dealt with proportionately.
The problem is that the extent is just not very publicly known and so most of the time, the 'self regulation' part is more about earning popularity points and not actually getting to the crux of the issue.
I would love to 'downvote' many DHF proposals, but apparently downvotes aren't needed there.
I also think that HBD apr@20% is not too dissimilar to self-voting with no consequence. If you think about what it materially means, idle reward > than productivity for the same capital input.
Since when did we tolerate people sucking the reward pool for minimal/zero effort?
Why do we tolerate it now just because it's buying a derivative of Hive (HBD) ?
A good influencer would probably sell most of his Coins and more to his followers, best case, followers that are onboarded due to his presence. The Speak Network will push in the direction of onboarding full communities and airdropping community coins. There's a lot to do ahead of us.