Thanks for the engagement. I truly appreciate it!
If people could just send rewards unilaterally, without regard to consensus or disagreement, it would just be tipping (which people can also do, without concern over downvotes).
Yes, I am all for systems that facilitate consensus and that are at their core community-driven. With that said, when a single whale account can repeatedly nuke posts to zero, just because they personally disagree with the content or dislike the author or with one or more of the curators, it is not 'consensus'; it is merely the weaponization of stake. If the community genuinely prefers a Hobbesian state of nature for the blockchain, then so be it. (And if such is the case and if it becomes clear to me that such is the case, then I will likely do as marky and 'walk away' from day-to-day involvement.)
However, if one prefers a Lockean state of nature, as do I, then some changes are warranted.
As a relative newcomer to Hive (I've been here for a little over two years), I see the ease with which DVs can currently be weaponized as a serious drawback to the future growth and health of the ecosystem.
Greater transparency can and will improve the situation, without the need for any protocol changes, and I am actively working with some well-respected members of this community to accomplish those ends. However, we should also seriously consider potential protocol changes. I will be presenting some ideas in that regard, and hopefully something meaningful will come from the ensuing dialogue.
I get the fact that adequate tools are needed to combat spam and fraud and the like. I also appreciate (and agree with) the importance of consensus with respect to reward pool distribution. My thoughts and concerns (regarding the current system) are threefold:
First, I genuinely fear that the ease with which DVs can be weaponized can and will blow up in our faces if and when Hive gains some of the widespread recognition it deserves.
Second, if under the current anti-abuse system we are unable to maintain the active participation of valuable longstanding contributors, like marky, that should be a wakeup call, imho. (Even if marky is okay with 'walking away', I am not okay with that. Not when I believe we can do better. Not when I believe we can achieve a both/and rather than either/or solution, if we put our minds to it.)
Third, although I am convinced that 'free DVs' have their place and likely 'saved the day' when malicious actions by a few were threatening the continued viability (and thus the very existence) of the blockchain, it is an extremely blunt instrument as currently configured. In light of my first two concerns, I refuse to simply shrug my shoulders and move on. I have been and will remain diligent to explore new ideas, to dialogue and brainstorm with any who care to join me. I have no doubt we can hone the tools at our disposal to provide much more precision with much less collateral damage.
We'll have to agree to disagree. A single whale CAN nuke SOME posts. But they have to prioritize which posts, and that's consensus. The ones they're nuking do not have consensus. The others that necessarily survive with successful payouts are consensus.
Nothing is going to blow up in our face if Hive gains widespread adoption because there will be too many posts and too much engagement for any peculiar preferences of an individual to make a difference. We pay a lot of attention to it now because the whole thing is small so every controversial outcome becomes a big deal.
On every platform on the internet, ever, there a variety of bad outcomes, but they're usually small and not at such a systemic level that it destroys the platform. People's accounts get hacked, get locked for mistaken reasons (and sometimes never unlocked, etc.). There is also blatant copyright infringement (someone posted an entire Disney movie on Twitter in HD the other day and it stayed there for a few days before being removed), impersonation, aggressive disinformation campaigns, etc. Perfection isn't achievable. Same here.
Erm... do you mind to paraphrase that a bit, mate? Please, define WTF is "community" consensus under the premise that you are describing.
If someone chooses to downvote something, it gets less rewards. The more stake downvoting it (whether from one person or multiple), the more stake disagreement there is, and the less rewards it gets.
At the same time, OTHER posts which do NOT get downvotes (or get relatively little stake downvoting, even if some), get more rewards. Those are the ones where the community has broadly agreed to direct rewards.
You can think of a downvote as a sort of veto on payouts. Anyone (or multiple people) can stand up and object, essentially veto that payout, though strength of that veto depends on stake.
Ok, I suppose your premise might be a bit better understood now. But what I find very very weird and highly misleading is the fact that you would have used the word "consensus" in all that malarkey about the downvotes. Since clearly there's not any consensus at all when through an arbitrary downvote you end up snatching and sweeping with the rewards of the authors and all the curators of a post.
The consensus is all the stuff that doesn't get downvoted (or is downvoted less).
Someone can arbitrarily downvote a few things, but they have to choose what to downvote. No one has enough downvotes to blanket everything, or even most (maybe more like 1% in extreme cases).
We'll have to agree to disagree here. That's not "consensus" in the slightest. Stuff that doesn't get downvoted or is downvoted less can happen for multiple and varied reasons.
Reasons as if the content of that "stuff" has not been seen by anyone or only seen by a minimal audience of true peers with the sufficient awareness and low HP stake as to know beforehand of their lack of power & influence and the uselessness of their downvotes to disagree, censor or cause harm to all those who show ideas contrary to their way of thinking.
Or that stuff so bland, so innocuous, so useless, so from a docile and servile herd that only seeks to fawn, flatter and please to the most powerful stakeholders with high HP stake to ingratiate themselves with them and earn favors and privileges for the stupid things they are forced to publish in order not to be questioned, punished and eventually ostracized if they dare to publish really interesting and important "stuff" with a minimum dose of controversy and critical thinking that really will motivate and make people think.
In my opinion only that kind of "stuff" is what doesn't get downvoted or is downvoted less. And it also has nothing to do with consensus at all.
I really don't know what do you refer to or what do you want to mean with that of "they have to choose what to downvote."
Over here it is clear, evident and notorious that all those addicted to spread downvotes are only those wealthy individuals with high HP, influence and power to try to manipulate, alter and skew the volume of the content published on the platform by its users only in favor of their own agenda and petty interests. No one else downvote shit here anywhere.
Many of you use downvotes as a retaliation tool. Others as a way to force their own whimsical, political, economic or philosophical agenda on others. And many others as a mere form of malevolent amusement by causing damage, confusion and disappointment in poorer people who does not think in the same way as you. That's what I see as the closest thing to a "consensus" of what is really happening here.
Yeah, if you have read carefully everything I've said in this comment. Define me now what the hell are extreme cases?
Cheers!!
That's extremely unlikely for anything with large payout.
It's really very simple. People have only a limited number of downvotes and most don't even use all of those. Only a VERY, VERY small amount of content ever gets downvoted. For some reason you are fixated on that and ignoring the large majority that does not get downvoted, and therefore in effect gets a nod from the stakeholder base because for whatever reason no one objects to it.
Extreme cases are the very, very largest stakeholders with a few percent of the stake (I'm one of the largest and I have a little over 1%). But with downvotes you only get 25% vote power, so someone with 1% of the stake can only downvote 0.25% of the upvotes.
The majority of stuff can't be downvoted heavily, and in practice it's far more than that (90-95%+ that is NOT downvoted). People have to choose. When they choose something to downvote, that is a VERY strong indication of disagreement. You don't have to agree there should be disagrement, but recognize it for what it is.
Consensus can also counter those downvotes if they so chose to. In the end, the votes are a community effort. The real problem is most people won't be bothered to, or even care.
That's just going to be human nature at work and a you problem not a me problem issue. You also have the fact a third party won't fully understand what is going on and won't be easy to make an educated decision on which side to support. They will have to further invest time, which many won't want to.