Also @trostparadox at this point this post is showing $196
And a large part of this post are comments from another post by another individual.
My direct question to you is this:
Do you feel this post is over-rewarded at this point? Do you feel this is more rewarded than an average original post on hive?
I feel this post is well-rewarded given the professionalism and information on governance that is presented. When you include the engagement for this post, I think it's under-rewarded. It gets very tiring reading emotional rants about voting and the influence these types of posts can garner. I feel like I've lost months of work from only a couple of tirades.
The engagement alone is worth the value and serves as a basis for how people should communicate. I mean, how many articles are there that just discusses the system and its rules with the likes of yourself, trost, dan, and anyone else who wishes to discuss their views on the matter. There's no animosity, just a discussion of what is and the plans of what could be.
This is the kind of example of an article/engagement I'll be passing on to newcomers for recommended reading.
I agree. You can read my conversation with the author.
Why are still complaining about your reputation?
You are not "shadow-banned", your thoughts are written in the chain, just your reputation is down.
You started your crusade or your social experiment -as you called it- with some bloggers mainly from the D-A-CH- area, you were insulting people from other countries, which are writing posts in a language you dont speak as far as i know, you were telling stupid conspiracy bullshit and you made wrong accusations about the "most toxic"-as you called it- community from switzerland, austria and germany, you still give constantly downvotes without any discussions due to your personal blacklist and you were ignoring a lot of peace offers.
So, i asked you many times, whats wrong with you?
Think you would like to you see in a role as a poor shadow banned victim on a crusade, but you are no victim, you are the actor in this game.
Eyerybody, who wants, can check this out.
Best regards.
100%. It has become tiring and it also has distracted many from what could be. Hive talking about Hive shows that we are not yet mature and these could be considered growing pains. We have not arrived yet and have a long way to go to innovate Hive to where it should be. A top 10 coin. The longer we take to establish social norms with actual code… the worse off this blockchain and it’s community becomes. Every one of us has made a decision to trade our perfectly good Bitcoin for Hive. We have done so with the expectation that Hive (in the long run) will be something the world needs just as much as the Bitcoin we traded it for. But I have a feeling missing another Bitcoin bull run is going to reduce our numbers significantly… and right now it’s all hands on deck so how we treat our own does matter.
This is a post that’s extremely valuable… and unfortunately so. The sooner we switch from talking about Hive to using Hive to talk about what people care about (more widely) the sooner Hive will reach mass adoption and become what it could be.
Before that can happen… the DV and it’s current use needs thought and innovation.
Thank you for your comment.
-Wil
That is incorrect. 95% of the quoted text was my own, from this comment, which currently has $0.58 in pending rewards.
This question should be directed at those who voted for it. They are the ones assigning value. However, from a market-based perspective, assuming free will and free exchange (as in, as long as those who voted for it were not somehow coerced or duped into doing so), then I would unequivocally say, "No." Three-hundred-plus individual minds have each assigned their own independent value.
Yes, and that is exactly what I would expect. I post rather infrequently. I only post when I have something important to announce or when I have something significant to say -- something that will either be significantly beneficial to potential readers or something that warrants considerable attention and/or engagement or debate.
As such, whenever I post, I expect it to be above-average both in terms of quality and importance and (hopefully) engagement. However, that is not something I can definitively know a priori. As stated above, I began writing this as a mere comment. After spending well over an hour formulating thoughts and organizing them, I realized that this was something that needed its own space, to generate its own awareness and its own engagement. And, in retrospect, it looks like that was the correct decision on my part, because in the marketplace of ideas, there seems to be some resonance, either with the ideas themselves, or with the need for engagement and debate about the topic, or both.
Yes, AND those who didn't, like me for example, and others as well.
And yes, you don't post frequently, and that must be taken into account. Also your post is thoughtful and NOT a rant. You have positive things to contribute.
Yet, I do think your post is over-rewarded compared to average original posts on hive. I am glad to see that you agree.
Good. I think we are communicating. You are beginning to understand how this blockchain actually works. Socially.
I am quite confident of my understanding of how things work, technically.
From a social standpoint, however, things are much more nuanced. I don't think anyone can truthfully claim to fully understand "how this blockchain actually works. Socially." (italics added) -- because there is no 'one way' that people socially interact.
The social aspects no doubt require a more circumspect consideration. From my vantage point, there are two competing 'worldviews' that greatly affect folks' social interaction on this blockchain. In large part, those differences depend upon the timing of an individual's arrival -- those who have been on the blockchain for years (like you) tend to view DVs as happenstance (i.e. not a big deal, whether given or received) and tend to view 'guarding the reward pool' as some sort of calling or duty or responsibility. By contrast, those who are relatively new (like me) tend to view DVs as toxic and counterproductive and give no or limited thought to 'guarding the reward pool'.
Although I do my best to see both perspectives, I cannot deny that I have my own biases. And, whereas my long-term goal is to see the platform grow and expand, I strongly favor a set of 'rules' that limits the amount of 'social damage' that any one accountholder can inflict on others, especially on others who don't share his/her worldview.
With all that said, many newcomers are likely to share my biases. My perspective is and has been focused on ensuring that those newcomers encounter a 'welcoming' place and that they desire to stay and become more and more engaged as time progresses. Subjective DVs very quickly turn what would otherwise be a pleasant experience into an unpleasant one.
To that end, my near-term goal is to provide a Layer 2 solution where newbies who share my worldview can arrive and thrive and not worry about subjective downvotes.
First, I must say your thought process is spot on! It is rare to find that these days from a relative new comer.
I don’t claim to be an expert on social aspects of hive. But you are correct I was there when we separated from steem. I was with the core members who wrote the code, although I am not a coder. Yes your understanding on how we interpret the upvote and downvote is accurate. As that is the way it was written in the original white paper and we stand by it.
To us, that’s the law of this blockchain.
Again I am so glad that you understood. I am ecstatic that you understood! :)
PS. I upvoted your comment above at 100%. Is it over-rewarded? Most certainly. But I wanted to communicate my happiness. We rarely enjoy small things in life these days. My vote is just that, small things in life. If someone DV and adjust that please don't feel bad. It is within their rights as a stakeholder.
I am glad we can share a little mutual understanding.
Although I do not purport to fully understand the 'code is law' mindset, I can say that if I had been one of the early arrivers, I would probably be much more closely aligned with that worldview than the one I currently have.
In any event, I believe that, by and large, we share the same goals. It's just that we disagree on the means and methods to achieve those goals.
That is why I have chosen to focus my efforts on Layer 2. If I can create a Layer 2 solution that is appealing to others who share my worldview, then I see three possible outcomes:
I am okay with any of the three. My hope and preference would be for outcome #2. However, if we end up with outcome #3, the censorship-resistance features of Layer 1 will continue to provide foundational benefits to the Layer 2 solution, and any disagreements about Layer 1 downvotes and Layer 1 reward pools become irrelevant (to me and the members of the new Layer 2 community). And, those who find themselves unhappy with subjective downvotes on Layer 1 will have a place where they can go -- a place built on a firm foundation (something Blurt and sites like it cannot offer, imho).
There are lot of L2 options available already. The trouble becomes an even smaller subset of people and more circle voting. Look at Leo. Look at POB in the early days maybe even now. You simply don’t have enough things to vote. Most of us are leaning towards the fact that curation dependent economy is dying or already dead. Incentive must be placed in something else.
Could be. Since I am relatively new to the platform, I have not yet reached that conclusion. However, I cannot dismiss the possibility that you may be right. My gut currently tells me otherwise, though.
Time, of course, will tell.
"Code is law," especially when used in reference to a blockchain where the code can be changed by less than two dozen people (all based on Stake and nothing else), is the same as saying "Might makes right."
This claim has been used since 2016, even though the code keeps changing. Weird, huh?
I have been pondering over the last several days about your ideas for a layer 2 approach. After much thought I do believe that you are indeed correct in that this would likely be the best way to rapidly innovate solutions for layer 1. I know, however, that their are people who would like to keep layer 2 on layer 2 so as to keep static how layer 1 is implemented in their favour at the expense of the entire Hive community. These people want innovation to happen at layer 2 and only at layer 2 and will do everything they can (from controlling what people see on the front page to the ranking of one’s voice in the comments section) to that end. Development on layer 2 justifies (in their minds) the merits of the current layer 1 structure so, of course, they are more than happy to encourage this sort of development. It’s smoke and mirrors however… a distraction from the disfunction happening on the foundational layer. Can we push through and make a layer 2 happen on the base layer? I hope so…🤞 but I guess time will tell. I see a lot of risk in developing on layer 2 with the current social climate.
Layer 2 experiments are probably the only way to innovate solutions for Layer 1.
And, to be quite honest, I probably can't argue persuasively against the inertia that keeps Layer 1 from innovating. Getting something wrong on Layer 2 is only costly for those who dared to experiment. Making a dramatic change to Layer 1 and getting it wrong could end up very difficult (and perhaps impossible) to undue the unintended or unforeseen damage. With that being said, there are some changes (experiments) that have to occur on Layer 1, such as adjustments to the 'haircut rule'.
In any event, the key to implementing any substantive changes to Layer 1 (especially with respect to the social media aspects of Layer 1) will require 'proving' the soundness of those changes on Layer 2 first. Even then, there will still likely be hesitation to implement changes to Layer 1. The irony here is the fact that a hugely successful Layer 2 solution will probably mean the change is not needed on Layer 1.
sorry i find a little flaw in this particular line -
Three-hundred-plus individual minds have each assigned their own independent value.u got hit with a trafalgar, haejin/rancho, etc vote, it then has a 20+ person trail, and then some of those have another 20 person trail attached that mirror votes.... so to assume that all those that voted actually READ the article is a bit too much for me to be able to believe - jussayin ;)
(had to go doube check i wasnt talking out my ass first ) XD
please dont nuke XD
Yes, at the time I believe the vote count was a little over 320, so I was hedging that number a bit. Even so, it is hard to say exactly how many "individual minds" are truly engaged here.
if ure wallet big enough, all are reading / trying to 'gain ure attention' XD - for us little folk, we just
'do you'
XD
(again, im overtired and probably dont write right / convey well XD
i used to do long posts, now i see its pointless, cos noone actually cares unless i can upvote em for a dollar plus XD ;)
eg https://hive.blog/adventure/@dunstuff/day-4-dex-creek-storms-on-cloudmaker-and-the-gangerang-range-to-crafts-wall-repost
Its probably worth much more
Well darling, you have already made your call :)
You voted this post at 100%, that is the best you can do.
lol
Flaunting in this way dehumanizes the platform. It also signals to everyone outside looking in… that there are inherent problems with this blockchain… but your so obsessed with your stake that I think you have lost the forest for the trees on what’s important for this blockchain.
This is a social platform where everyone’s voice should be recognized and respected. Stake isn’t something that can be used to discredit someone else’s voice and belittling people publicly. Talking down to people puts the entire blockchain in a bad light.
We all have a voice. We all are important to how this social blockchain works. Social Capital counts just as much as Financial Capital does and minimizing someone in this way is extremely disrespectful not only to the individual you are talking to but also to the entire community of owners that on this blockchain.