I don't mind many downvotes, if thats the consensus so be it. I mind 100s of upvotes and 2 downvotes that deplete all of my rewards on every post.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't mind many downvotes, if thats the consensus so be it. I mind 100s of upvotes and 2 downvotes that deplete all of my rewards on every post.
This is a common misconception people have. They are not your rewards until the bidding period has completed.
Amen.
It's incredibly disappointing to see large stakeholders try to monopolize a decentralized ecosystem based on personal bias.
People will always have a difference of opinion. Someone I didn't know was downvoting me for months last year. Your posts are a lot of referrals and not much about Hive. Try a post that's purely focused on Hive and see how that goes.
Alternatively I could just leave, I want to be apart of Hive, I have advocated for Hive, but if this is the position that the main stakeholders in the ecosystem want to take, it just isn't worth my energy.
Hive is all about freedom and everyone is equally free to do what they wish or react how they wish. All stakeholders, large or small, are able to contribute to the evaluation of content submitted to the blockchain. Plus, Hive is decentralized and there's no one entity that can direct stakeholders on who to support or how to vote. Everyone is entitled to vote how they see fit and everyone is entitled to be voted on if they opt to post. That's just how it is when we place the concepts of freedom and decentralization in a DPOS setting.
I think you are glorifying the situation.
In theory HIVE is decentralized, in reality a few big stake holders (most of them either early miners or former bid bot owners) control the witnesses and decide over post rewards as well as the success of the proposals.
Many not so huge stake holders told me they don't even dare to take part in discussions like this one due to the fear of being flagged.
I'm a small stakeholder. The fact that you see someone like me taking part in anti-abuse projects speaks for itself. Sure anyone can get downvoted but that's intended. Someone will downvote my comment here as they normally do. We actually have a good number of stakeholders that are fairly balanced in terms of who they are, their views, etc. If one stakeholder downvotes another one will upvote. No one has excessive power like they did back on the old chain.
OK, more or less small, I admit I thought you were bigger. :)
I really respect your work, and you have a well deserved good reputation on this platform (I don't mean the number 70), but just out of curiosity, let me ask if you ever was involved in fighting abuse of big stake holders or 'only' against spam and plagiarism of small or medium sized users (which is of course very important, too)? And in addition, I guess you had some support from bigger accounts (which I don't considers as negative).
Why, actually, that's intended?
Did you write anything abusive? Or did you only explain me your point of view (which I appreciate).
Isn't the original sense of flags to fight against abuse, plagiarism, or maybe to reduce the reward of overvalued posts?
Of course everybody is allowed to use his stake as he wishes, but why should the bees within a hive fight against each other (for example because of different opinions) instead to use their stings to defend the hive together against their enemies? :)
Thanks. We fight all abuse equally, irrespective of the size of the account. The general idea that we fight small stakeholders is because the largest abuse operators regularly remove most of their acquired rewards/stake and split what they have across hundreds if not thousands of accounts. So we always end up with this visual representation of a small account when in reality if you add them up you end up with a fairly large stake in many cases. For part of the abuse fighting we 'borrow' large accounts that aren't fully using their downvotes in order to be able to restore the funds back to the reward pool.
Downvotes are intended because the final evaluation of content is meant to be a combination of up and down curation. In this case I'm not writing anything that's intended to offend anyone (although it might) but I know for a fact there's an account that throws a tiny downvote on most things I post. I can respect that person's decision to curate how they see fit.
That's the great thing about Hive; there is no single definition of an enemy because we are decentralized. What I see as an enemy won't be what you see as one and neither of those will be what whomever reads our comments will see. All we can do is convey our vision through documentation and other means and leverage collaboration to arrive at some semblance of cohesion within decentralization.