In all cryptos there are people who got stake that may seem unfair, but they were there at the right times. I'm sure that if you had gotten stake that way too, you wouldn't see it as a problem.
I think we're lucky that instead of just abandoning the project and walking away with the free money, they decided to at least support projects that in some way or another contribute to something within the chain, don't you think?
Maybe I would be happy about that stake but of course also would still be able at the same time to recognize the problem of centralization and control of only a few over the big majority of users. I am here since 2016. I was here when bid bots took control and I always criticized it, as well as automated curation sniping, from the beginning.
Quite some time ago I withdrew the biggest part of my stake. I don't criticize HIVE because I would be jealous in any way. I own bitcoins, altcoins, and I am in the top 10 richlist of Splinterlands concerning collection power.
The only reason why I still care at all is that I liked the fantastic idea of a censorship free, blockchain based social media site, where in addition authors get rewarded for quality content by real curators who manually check, read, evaluate and upvote content, and HIVE is indeed very advanced from a technological point of view.
However, I am deeply disappointed from what I see and observe here whenever I log in. And that's why I support users like @kennyskitchen who still make the effort to point at the weak points of this social network again and again, even if that means to accept flags from the oligarchs.
Of course you are free to think like that, but from my point of view I cannot agree. If they had walked away with their money, at least HIVE would be distributed more evenly now, and maybe we would have a rather decentralized social network.
For example the distribution of SPS and DEC in Splinterlands is far better than the distribution of HIVE with many different big stake holders and organic growth.
Even without the old HIVE devs there would always come new ones as long as the community is healthy, friendly, thriving.
I really respect people like @theycallmedan who bought their stake and were never involved in stupid flag wars. Also @aggroed and @yabapmatt just peacefully develop their stuff. These somewhat newer users who don't belong to the 'old crew' are my only hope for a better future of HIVE.
I know that for example on Solana and the Cardano blockchain social media projects are prepared, too. If HIVE isn't able to solve its problems I will happily join better options as soon as available, even if I will always remember the old times where at first STEEM (the SteemFests ...) and then HIVE meant a lot to me.
did you think they will work better? I remember voice promises :D Turns out into a NFt marketplace or something else.
I think social media is extremely complex. But mainly because people from WEB2 expect all people are equal ( even if not true, Influencer guidelines, financial interests).
Equality is very important. Otherwise, people will feel "it's unfair" and a shitstorm starts.
IMO Hive as a reward token doesn't work. It should be an investor token.
rewards should be always community tokens.
I remember the promise "tokenized the web". Today I read "put everything on L2". It's technically a good idea. L2 is less safu.
But for that, we don't need hive´s backbone technology. A smart contract platform/Blockchain with IPFS and some centralized storage could do the same.
That's why I would love to see all critical things on L1. Special I have in mind hardware becomes better and storage cheaper.
Well, the 'products' are not yet produced.
I hope the might do better, but I don't know it.
Solana will get pretty much financial support.
The Cardano founder had a rather interesting conversation with Ben Goertzel from SingularityNET.
My idea is that there could be two different pools. People who consider themselves as investors could put their HIVE into the 'investor pool' where they get interests for their investment (call it "staking"). My idea is that who decides to go for the investment pool shouldn't be able at the same time to vote on posts. Then they wouldn't have the pressure to earn curation reward by doing automated 'curation'.
Users who consider themselves as authors and/or real manual curators wouldn't get interest on their money in their pool but could earn curation rewards from voting for good content manually (only manually!). Of course a whale who is really interested in content could decide to put his HIVE in the "author/curator" pool, instead to choose the pure investor pool.
Concerning the tokenized web I wonder about two things:
But well ... lets wait and see how things develop.
L2 tokens will have only value based on revenue. L2 will be pretty much the same as Web2 today,
I also think hive is to complex for most. Gamers maybe can handle it, because they already a lot on the computer. But average Web2 users will have problems.
That's a pretty fair point.
I will not discuss this any further with you. You are a user I respect quite a bit because you supported me before with projects I did.
Lol, it's not forbidden to discuss and exchange opinions with respected users.
Anyway, I wish you a nice day! :)
Have a nice day buddy!