A fantastic person would put work, integrity, history and trust on the line to get more support and delegations and for their community. Not ask them to give them more of their rewards so they can bribe stakeholders with more delegations so they can later "return the favor" by voting you back with more stake. It creates an endless loop of this beneficiary thing continuing, him wanting to keep delegators in and in the end the people in your community getting an unfair share of the reward pool compared to all other communities while he makes a lot more in fees and cuts he takes from his own project. Trust me when I say that it's important that this activity doesn't continue, not just for the authors and the risk of the owner of these accounts just disappearing and abandoning the community at some point while going autovote and cashing in, but also that if this is allowed it sets a precedent for other bigger accounts to do the same and before we know it along with the changes in curation curve in the next HF we're back to selling votes and content not being rewarded for it's quality, effort and the author behind it but whoever is paying more or giving more back to the curators.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hi again @acidyo,
I want to point out that nobody is stopping anyone or any community from adding beneficiaries if they want to. So long as it doesn't come down to voting undeserving articles, or plagiarized articles, but high quality contents then it's all good. If you take time to go read posts in the Project Hope community, you'll find really very high quality posts, that the authors put in great amount of work and creativity in putting together. Normally, such great contents tend to go to waste without any upvotes. But Project Hope has created a system where the hard working author gets good reward for his post and the community grows as well, by splitting the rewards with the author. It's an absolute win-win. Nobody is complaining.
This is a decentralized system, if any big accounts or communities want to do same, then it's absolutely up to them. But it shouldn't be a comparison, as everyone has an open field. So long as it's not abused with voting low quality content, then it's all good. Hardworking authors are looking for an opportunity where they can be appreciated, and Project Hope gives that. This is an amazing idea to help the Hive blockchain grow, if Project Hope wasn't doing it's great contribution for the better good of Hive, I'm sure many authors that drop posts in PH community would have left Hive already. I'm sure that is not what we want. This has increased the awareness of Hive blockchain and investors are coming in. That's what we all want. Please trust me, so long as the approach isn't abused by voting low quality posts, but high quality content, then it's a brilliant approach. The benefits are obvious, hardworking authors are happy coming in because they see the benefits, they work harder to produce high quality posts, cause they see the benefits. My aim is to make you see reason and convince you that there's actual great good in this, so long as the posts voted are high quality contents. Please see reason. Thanks a million for reading! Best regards @acidyo