It's quite simple, if you're not curating for any of the many reasons you and others have stated above and before, you're then curating for an additional interest in direct monetary rewards meaning you're getting more than the 50% return.
I haven't looked at pimp token yet, but if there's any additional rewards on the table curators are now corrupted to want to reward that content and ignore others not offering more.
If you just reward people with a token or send them part or all of the curation rewards you're still just earning the same or up to the same amount as any other stakeholder, but if you get something extra this gives you an advantage which is often derived by the delegation of the authors you upvote.
I didn't read the full post, mostly the part about ocdb and where you tagged me, just thought I'd make that part clear.
That's one of the biggest issues we don't want to incentivize because during the bid bot era most authors who didn't buy votes were ignored and those buying votes only received a portion of the profits making 50-50 more like 20-80 in favor of curators.
I'm sure there's a lot of different issues but this one was big enough for me to start speaking up about it and taking action. Sure it sucks the person downvoted decided to just abandon his community and activity here but what that was his choice and not one I was hoping or aiming for.
Glad you came by! Even if you didn't read it all, I know it's pretty long. You'll be happy to know, I'm creating a whole new mechanism with PIMP and putting curation in the hands of the token holders themselves. #staytuned! Not that our vote is all that big currently, but it will probably be widely adopted by other tokenized communities. Will probably take about a month to complete. We are already testing it and setting up various components.
PIMP does something very similar to OCDB with it's earnings as we send out daily rewards to people with enough tokens staked from our curation efforts on top of votes for delegators and properly tagged tokenized community postings.
Feel free to look at !PIMP and evaluate it. Though, it will be evolving to nod in agreement at other's opinions of what may or may not be considered vote buying. Community protection and all ๐
I do see your side of the coin, know that. And I'm not kissing your ass here, but I do agree with unfair advantages in certain situations and the bid bots were getting pretty topsy turvy.
On another note, just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on AI produced content?
I don't understand this sentence xD
Define AI produced, if it's fully generated by AI and author just read through with slight changes then should absolutely not be rewarded. If used AI to fix spelling/grammar/readiness and openly mentioned it's okay-ish, although personally I'd prefer to read the raw.
There's a fine-line there, I think there's some people abusing autovotes to generate AI generated content, usually about things that many have already blogged and posted about countless times that the AI know already. There may even be some pretending to just use AI for the grammar/etc as an excuse to just have it generate the full post with very low effort - guess it comes down to how much you wanna believe the person. It's difficult times ahead for curators even without all these schemes people come up with.
Ha! I mean I agree with you that buying a vote renders a slightly unfair advantage so to eliminate any belief that the #PIMP District is selling votes, we will be pivoting to a new curation model as soon as the construction of the code is complete and deployable.
AI has come a long way, and I don't think it should be rewarded either and I probably ticked off a few people I know (and were moderately close to) because I flagged their AI generated/respun comments and some fully-genned posts. Was someone I'd been following a while so I recognized the demeanor had changed in the posts as they got lazy ๐. I think we'll be seeing a lot more of it coming and was looking for an ally in that sense to help with limiting their presence here.
Yeah it's not fun work to try and protect the reward pool, I'm open to lending a hand with voting power if need be but can't spare much time lately unfortunately.
Great to hear about the changes! One simple thing to make life easier for curators and the project is also to just give them posting authority so they can vote on your behalf with your account but logging into it with their keys, thus you don't need to give them the actual posting key which may make things weird if you ever need to remove them from the position.
The beauty of the code being implemented, is they won't need the keys, just enough #PIMP staked ๐ you'll see soon.
Once the AI invasion comes, I'll be knocking on your door.
seems twatter and youtube are already full of them in the comment section at least, guess next step to prove you're real will be to quite literally be connected to your PC so you can constantly verify a person is typing this with biometrics and live vital checks next your username.
Apple Health and Google Fit? You already know they foreseen it coming. Now if Actifit can get on their level...
But how bad can he be if he has an actual community to abandon? I did watch your video and glazed over a few of the posts about it. One thing I don't recall is how much of the reward pool was being used for this. I do think that the vote amount matters. The question I try to ask though is whether it is authentic human interaction or not. If it is authentic human interaction, I'm starting to wonder if that isn't a better expenditure of the reward pool than quality content.
When people build bonds, they stick. They never really die (well...unless they die in real life). But many of us can lay dormant for years, but we never really leave, because the friendships we made will always pull us back in. If such a bond results in what people call a voting circle, is that so detrimental to Hive, especially if they mostly stake Hive?
Edit: change in wording.
Nah, the phrase circlejerks is often overused, very few vote-trade excessively as far as I can tell, those who do usually do it in an automated fashion so you can easily spot it with tools such as hivetasks.com. What you're referring to there's nothing wrong with that, we all have favorites and as you say as long as rewards don't go too crazy no one's gonna bat an eye if you're constantly just voting the same 5 people every day.
It's a spectrum however, if those same 5 people started posting less and less effort/quality posts, got less and less engagement, you'd think you'd wanna lower your votes to match it, right? Sure they're your friends but at some point if the rewards they are getting get noticible by others and the other requirements aren't up to par with the rewards there's also nothing wrong if curators/stakeholders adjusted the rewards down a bit, right?
That's what downvotes are for, you could also imagine if Hive suddenly magically went up 100x to $20 and stayed there for a while - I shouldn't be rewarded $6000 for a post that's earning me $60 today, right?
Anyway, from my glance the user was not receiving much engagement and a lot of comments were mostly token commands both on their own posts and on others, and like I said, even though purchased votes were only resulting in $5-10 value that's still $500-1000 later, doesn't mean they've been earning them in a fair manner like others work hard to strive towards.
Sure. I agree with downvotes. I do wish the upvote button was a question with a "Do you think this post should earn [more] or [less]" prompt rather than the negative connotation of the downvote. The problem with the downvotes though is when people do things like downvote the person's whole blog instead of the related content or downvote well beyond the initial earnings of the posts. Even this would be fine in my book if it didn't have an implication on "reputation" and if that user and the community in general had some other recourse to account for what could be considered bullying.
I don't dislike your idea of a one button up or down question, and yeah, I'm usually not in favor of zero'ing out posts either but when you think about the posts they've farmed daily through purchased votes with no genuine interaction or consumption for what may have been years, a few days of downvotes zero'ing posts are nothing compared to the amount they've quite practically "stolen" from the rest of the community. One could say maybe the real reason they left is because they know they won't be able to continue earning that same APR now rather than how the downvotes may have affected them. After all my only ask was to stop buying votes and they did it even on posts trying to play victim.
Fair enough.
His automated community posts are still going even though "he's gone".
I want to keep this as productive as possible. I applaud you for working out your thoughts and feelings in words. If we can all do this more (as it seems more and more are doing) I feel confident we can work together to improve HIVE. As I have said on-chain, I do think we were "due" for a shakeup. We had ALL gotten lazy.
I do want to make one thing clear. While hotheaded, @freecompliments did not abandon his community. He left them HSBI, which is a "decentralized user curation program", where we curate users in the fourth dimension, not just single pieces of content. @josephsavage will be talking tomorrow, I believe you are invited. I will not be speaking.
Thank you for keeping it cordial - and as always - Let's Keep Talking!
Thank you