It is ongoing on Hive, as it was on Steem. @ned no longer is part of that oligarchy, and Sun Yuchen may not be, but an oligarchy wields power on Hive, just as it did on Steem.
Stake Holder Economics have Pros and Cons. Alpha is who can ally himself in smart ways, that's how it's done between Chimps in the jungle and also on DPoS Blockchains by humans.
You might be surprised to know that Hive tokens are a form of speech. Speech censored could include our tokens, if we're not quite robust about protecting our speech.
I consider my tokens the least important form of speech, perhaps because I pay far more attention to my words than I do my tokens.
But here, or elsewhere, I'll not be ruled by force. Pandering to power is not sovereignty, and I will expect better, because if we don't do better than that Hive will never have the ability to distribute the means of production it was meant to, and something else that can will replace it, because the market will act to secure independent means of wealth whenever possible, and the technology to make it possible exists.
If Hive has tricked us into thinking we could get it here, and we can't, Hive is doomed to failure, and something else is going to eat the market it could have had.
That's not wrong, but #HIVE is also one of the best ecosystems to start this 'new' rather layer2 system.
Whenever you think this is the ONE - you've basically already lost the plot. It's amazing to me how people can watch "The Matrix" and don't see the ultimate lesson behind it. Every system will eat itself from inside, it's just a matter of time. We need to embrace change and invest in what will disrupt us eventually.
That's why I'm here. I want Hive to succeed, and that's why I advocate for the underlying value that creates value in our tokens. That value is our speech. Speech isn't only blogs, and plenty of other means of speaking have arisen on Hive, but it is the original mechanism, and remains particularly well suited to nuance and delivering robust and substantive information.
There's nothing wrong with adding value, but change can eliminate value too. That would be tragic IMHO.
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?
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?
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?
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.
100% upvote, DPOS is power for sale.
Nailed it.
Justin Sun came in and paid for power, boom he took control and has the power.
Someone could do the same to Hive.
It is ongoing on Hive, as it was on Steem. @ned no longer is part of that oligarchy, and Sun Yuchen may not be, but an oligarchy wields power on Hive, just as it did on Steem.
Stake Holder Economics have Pros and Cons. Alpha is who can ally himself in smart ways, that's how it's done between Chimps in the jungle and also on DPoS Blockchains by humans.
Don’t expect anything else, srsl don’t.
You might be surprised to know that Hive tokens are a form of speech. Speech censored could include our tokens, if we're not quite robust about protecting our speech.
I consider my tokens the least important form of speech, perhaps because I pay far more attention to my words than I do my tokens.
But here, or elsewhere, I'll not be ruled by force. Pandering to power is not sovereignty, and I will expect better, because if we don't do better than that Hive will never have the ability to distribute the means of production it was meant to, and something else that can will replace it, because the market will act to secure independent means of wealth whenever possible, and the technology to make it possible exists.
If Hive has tricked us into thinking we could get it here, and we can't, Hive is doomed to failure, and something else is going to eat the market it could have had.
That's not wrong, but #HIVE is also one of the best ecosystems to start this 'new' rather layer2 system.
Whenever you think this is the ONE - you've basically already lost the plot. It's amazing to me how people can watch "The Matrix" and don't see the ultimate lesson behind it. Every system will eat itself from inside, it's just a matter of time. We need to embrace change and invest in what will disrupt us eventually.
That's why I'm here. I want Hive to succeed, and that's why I advocate for the underlying value that creates value in our tokens. That value is our speech. Speech isn't only blogs, and plenty of other means of speaking have arisen on Hive, but it is the original mechanism, and remains particularly well suited to nuance and delivering robust and substantive information.
There's nothing wrong with adding value, but change can eliminate value too. That would be tragic IMHO.
Tragic indeed
So yes I think you are right, but your fast with your conclusion may be too fast.
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?
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?
True