Ph-fund is a community account not of an individual and it is not the "ph-fund" that is asking for the beneficiary, we are the one who is setting it as beneficiary.
How come we can say it as self-vote if ph-fund is not even asking for it, we are setting it voluntarily.
Why do we ask people to "Power Up" and hold their "Hive"?
By doing this, we are not liquidating our funds and this shows our trust in the platform.
This is the same reason why we are setting up beneficiary, we trust our ph community and want to contribute some percentage
of our funds towards the growth of the community and its future endeavours.
Thanks
Why are people not voluntarily donating to it part of their rewards after posts pay out?
You're holding them ransom with the unwritten rule that they'll get the votes if they set your account as beneficiary, technically self-voting for the "growth" of the account. A quick look at the voting reflects that they mainly look for posts with the beneficiary to vote on.
Not even gonna get into the selfishness of growing the account and the amount of rewards it'll need in the future to maintain that growth along with you hoping many delegators will just be too lazy to remove the delegations if the returns that are unfair to begin with. It'd be one thing to promise delegators more rewards if that came from your own pocket, that would show actual care for the community's growth but it's another thing having the community pay for them.
It's all just a wicked scheme and somehow you've tricked a whole community to fall for it, thankfully the rest of Hive aren't as easily tricked and can see your intentions and schemes and won't tolerate it.
At the same time they close the doors to new users, what kind of selfish community is that?
Why has hive kept Rewards Payout as 50% HBD & 50% HP or 100%HP?
Why don't we have all the payout in HBD only, hive could have let individuals decide whether to convert it into HP or not?
Why is hive locking the rewards as HP, let individual decide if he want to invest back in HP?
Moreover, hive made it mandatory to lock minimum 50% HP.
Should I call it a wicked scheme?
@acidyo, you are doing great work with what you are doing with curating communities. I appreciate that.
You must also try to understand it from the perspective of a PH community member.
No one has tricked me. I am an adult and can think. Large hive power doesn't necessarily make anyone more smarter.
Today you have a large hive power and you are downvoting our posts by interpreting what we might be doing and that is just an interpretation not reality.
Thanks
Your question is really unrelated to this.
You could instead ask, why is no one selling votes anymore? They could easily sell their votes for some extra returns, right? Or instead of selling just ask the people they gonna upvote to give them a small percentage in beneficiaries, right?
Why was the EIP introduced with 25% downvote mana? Why did vote selling stop as a majority to exist right after that? Who tried their best to disincentivize vote selling to make curation as fair and trending as unique and deserving of the rewards based on the content and who was behind it rather than who was buying votes or bribing curators?
I didn't stop my attempts back then to improve curation and proof of brain, even when I had South Korean stakeholders with 50m+ SP who were equally as much against downvotes stop me and I sure won't stop now from someone who has one of the worst reputations on Hive pulling this scheme in exchange for higher returns and an unfair growth compared to the rest of the platform. It's surprising it even lasted this long, guess people are just busy with their own things. And I will try my best to keep proof of brain and curation for the sake of content after the next hardfork that'll make curation curve linear again.
I've repeated myself enough now for a week and won't be discussing this matter further, at least not against the same hivemind and same arguments over and over.
Thanks , will not discuss further, your are only talking about vote-selling, which is not the case here.
Or, it could be...
Setting a small percentage voluntarily for the growth of community.
I see it that way...you see it other way around!
Perception.
The same perception that thinks piotr is doing it all for the good of the community but never mentioning his own returns and the growth of the accounts directly benefitting him the most, i.e. the selfishness of it all compared to just paying the leases from his own pocket or giving delegators higher than 100% returns from his own costs if it really was about community growth. Keep sheeping.