I see the value in Dpos if implemented right. Stake is valuable and there should be perks for hodling, but it doesn't need to give one more power than another in governance, for example. I don't think it needs to be done away with, but think it could use a restructuring.
The problem is, those who get to make the decision to do so are unlikely to give up that power. None of the forks(alternatives using the exact first layer) have addressed this, so I don't see them as an answer to much.
It's pretty simple really. If you want to remove stakeholder votes from rewards, then remove stakeholders as the ones paying the rewards from inflation. Create a new system with rewards paid for and controlled by a subcommunity with different allocation rules, or rewards coming from ad revenue and allocated in some other way, or something else.
I don't think it is necessary for DPoS to involve rewards at all. The social posting and rewarding system just happens to be an app that was built on the chain, but it's not the only way, and not part of DPoS itself.
I think only people who secure the network should even be rewarded with Hive. 2nd layer solutions that are out now easily can reward people in specific tokens for a community.
Fine with me. The social app is basically an app. It happened to be built into the blockchain, but from a software design or blockchain consensus point of view there really isn't any reason for it. The model of "smart contract" used in Bitshares (predecessor of Steem, predecessor of Hive) was code included in the core blockchain consensus code itself, but the world has moved on and that's not really seen as ideal at this point. The social app should probably be second layer, yes.
So stakeholders are paying inflation that they have not earned or received yet, but post author and voter rewards aren't theirs until the receive them?
Rules for thee but not for me.
Stakeholders are paying for inflation every single block no matter what they do, because they are the ones being inflated. If you show up looking for rewards with low or no stake, inflation doesn't cost you anything. And that's perfectly okay, the system is designed to potentially reward you, and maybe you will get some rewards, but you're not entitled to them nor entitled to much of a say over who gets them.
Stakeholders can't avoid being inflated (well, at least not without a hard fork), but they can and do have a say (in proportion to their stake, i.e. contribution to the cost of inflation) over what that inflation is used for.
That means, if I understand it correctly, that those who are squinting at their payouts here are stupid enough to believe what it says on the box? Well, insofar as I myself trust the advertising that is made for a product, I haven't learned very much in life, have I?
However, shouldn't it then rain downvotes for postings that do marketing and have catchwords on their packaging that suggest something on the social app that can't really be adhered to there, because the actors suggest to the curious customer that he can find a livelihood here? In any case, I see the upvotes fluttering in everywhere in praise of these "unimagined possibilities". Consequently, you should basically take the wind out of the sails of such postings too, because they suggest something that goes against the purely rational principle of block building.
If you took away the social app altogether, what would be left? A pure cryptocurrency that wants to experience being traded and financial transactions without banks as intermediaries in between? But where is Hive traded? Not on binance and kraken, as far as I know. As we are experiencing, anonymous transactions are not tolerated or crypto trading platforms are pulling out of it, or am I seeing this wrong? I am not a pro at all of this.
A cynic might say that it is these hopefuls who take the advertising for granted and spread enthusiasm that basically ensure that their own illusion is maintained. The emotionless calculating stakeholder who is in charge here can be quite happy with that, can't he?
If I understand Hive as a casino (which I think, comes closest to what it is), where I play with chips, wouldn't it be the case that I also want to exchange these chips at some point?
Why then all the fuss about social engagement, as read above? Why the mantra of "holding"? Why is it that individual bloggers are expected to engage in their comment sections? Things are being mixed up here that seem to contradict each other.
The jester would probably laugh and say, "Well, we never said you couldn't make a living on Hive, however, we don't rule out that possibility either."
That's basically a form of promise without a promise. It can be done, of course, and we see it being done. Looking at it that way, one could interject that those who believe the advertisements are also the ones doing the advertising. Advertising is always tied to the emotional sensations people experience through it. To that extent, I could dismiss it as romantic nonsense. But still give my thumbs up - lol
You just can't say that too loudly, because then you'd probably be stoned from all sides, both by the hopeful bloggers and by those who are in charge here, because it just doesn't play well, does it?
I don't worry in that respect, I do not put my woe and well to this place, for the better wisdom. With my acquired stake I can, as they say, do what I want, can't I?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where does it say you are entitled to rewards on any particular post?
:) The answer is: probably nowhere in this exact term, as far as I can tell.
But it's the suggestion which is out there, big time. As I said, you can say "it's nowhere said, so why would anyone assume it?" And my answer is "because, in various and colorful ways, its the underlaying message". Would you really say that this is not the case?
The marketing around rewards has never been great. I don't disagree with numerous wrong impressions being given. We should work to improve it, but communicating about a complex system to an audience who aren't experts on the technology isn't that easy either.
I think, I made that obvious.
You have the marketers, right? And you have the white paper. Those two don't go always together, that much seems to be clear to me.
I did not say anything about entitlement, did I?
There is some marketing. It could definitely be better.
True