"Large stakeholders are incentivised to curate (they earn the curator's rewards), while the creator earns the author's reward, but there is nothing designated for the consumers of these contents."
Curation rewards substitute pecuniary interest for other, generally considered far more important values of society by folks not obsessed with finance. Mike Tyson once said that Don King would sell his momma for a dollar, and that lays bare the perverse influence of financialization on society. Hive has vastly more valuable metrics than financial, as is blatantly obvious from the rapid dominance of social media of global markets. Censorship continues to burgeon and degrade civil society globally, while Hive continues to abandon it's potential to provide that priceless benefit to society that is existentially dependent on it.
"Hive needs to review its rewards system. What it currently has isn't working..."
It's working great to keep the oligarchy in control of inflation, and prevent IRL plutocrats from seizing the power to govern Hive as Sun Yuchen did Steem. Bugs are features, and trash treasure, depending on your viewpoint.
Thanks!
Edit:
"There is a popular account on X by the handle Dave the Reply Guy and he earned $400 just replying to content."
Does this financialization do anything other than manipulate monetary benefits? What is the purpose of social interaction? Is $400 more important than informed discussion of any of the topics Dave joined?
Almost any social interaction is far more valuable to those discussing it than a couple bucks they might get for clicking post. I have maintained for years that eliminating curation rewards completely would eliminate that perverse financialization of social interaction while enabling society to enjoy the monetary benefits of social media instead of an oligarchy. But, guess how the governance of a plutocracy, where power to govern is exclusively derived from stake, is determined?
I agree. In theory, Hive providing an immutable platfrom with high censorship resistance is more valuable than the financial incentives people gain from the platfrom. But I can argue that they are not mutual exclusive. Most people need to be financial free to think and converse without bias.
Also, one can argue that society is ready to embrace what Hive has to offer. It's almost a decade of preaching the gospel of decentralisation but that hasn't resonated with people, however, the monetary incentive has prompted their interest. During this process many (or few) are sold the idea and importance of having a decentralised social platfrom for free and transparent dialogues.
So my point is: hive can offer people financial freedom and free speech.
Fair enough. I do not oppose them per se. They want power, I seek freedom (both financially)
Yes it might in certain cases. For someone in a third word country that is security, which affords them the luxury of engaging in meaningful conversations and activities that can help their community and the world at large.
I appreciate your considered response.