I for one am glad we have arbiters of content that decide a ceiling of worth. We wouldn't want to attract anyone here who would even think about making more than $100 on a post (an arbitrary number I just pulled out of my ass).
We also wouldn't want people to power up more hive than that to reward the people they like, because that would be bad. I say limiting ourselves and expectations to mediocrity is the best approach, and I know there are big stakeholders here that agree with me.
Gonna get hard to downvote everything under $100 when Hive goes x1000.
It's a dirty job but somebody gots to do it; we gotta try!
You also forgot to mention that it doesn't matter that I had to write hundreds of quality posts that basically got rewarded nothing just to get where I am today. This is a rite of passage, and should definitely not be factored in to any downvote scenario. Quality content that doesn't get upvoted should be ignored but low quality content should always be downvoted to zero. Because at the end of the day Hive is a network that should only allocate inflation to blog posts, and only the good ones (of people who already have established followings). Best strat is best. #GOAT
No Ron, there is no one setting the max reward. Please don't misdirect. There have been a lot of conversation. Please try and keep up ;)
So you're saying "disagreement with rewards" isn't a thing? And that disagreement isn't an arbitrary number that individual stakeholders pull out of their ass?
"disagreement with rewards" is a thing, a very common thing.
but an individial stakeholder doesn't pull any number out of their ass.
go do your thing Ron. Make yourself useful :)
See you in Vegas. Be nice to me when you see me in person :)
Cheers!
No one seems to be complaining about arbitrary upvotes