Before the fork, I noticed that the kinds of complaints you mentioned in your post were rampant. There was a lot of criticism being thrown around due to differences in users' opinions. Now that we’ve split from the other side of the group, it seems we still have similar criticisms toward those in leadership positions or positions of power, though it’s not as intense as it used to be. I suppose that wherever governance is involved, there will always be opposing sides to maintain balance.
Although it may seem like we are clashing over ideas or opinions, I believe it’s a healthy way to hold each other accountable. It can also raise awareness about specific issues and encourage changes, even if the impact is small. I don’t expect significant changes to happen overnight on this platform. I’d rather we proceed cautiously and avoid rushing into things.
Your discussion about monopoly and the examples you shared are starting to make me realize how users—especially those with small balances—can actually make a difference. Theoretically, it’s possible for a large group of users with small balances to have a significant impact on the platform. The blockchain itself is designed to accommodate everyone, regardless of account value. However, many users are opting out or ignoring the platform’s governance because they feel their votes don’t carry enough weight to make a difference—when, in reality, that’s far from the truth. If only the majority of users realized their collective power as a community then the platform would have been a much better place.
Nowadays, it doesn’t seem like there’s an influencer or a strong personality who can rally users to act collectively toward a common goal. It feels like most of us are working independently, each pursuing what we think will benefit our personal goals on the platform.
The search for a strong leader is a misguided path. For real change to happen, society itself must change, which means each individual must change. If these changes become widespread, everything will transform.
I’ve seen leaders change many times, both through general elections and as a result of revolutions. In both cases, there was a strong leader, but in all cases, it was a deception of the people. It cannot be otherwise. However, if society itself changes, rather than just the leader, that’s already a qualitative leap.
I completely agree with you: changes must occur gradually and cautiously to avoid entering zones of imbalance. And yes, there must be both power and opposition—real opposition, not an illusion. This is also a normal balancing mechanism that helps those in power not lose their minds from it. 😄
In my article, I wrote about real numbers. But if we were to write, say, optimistic ones—like 10,000 users delegating 1,000 HP each—that would make a curator with 10 million HP. For a moment, consider this: that's 20% of the entire emission.
You know... your expression applies equally well to any state on the planet, not just Hive:
I intentionally began the article with the phrase:
Hardly anyone fully grasped its meaning, and if they did, only very few. 😌
Your comment is upvoted by @topcomment
You can support the Topcomment initiative by delegating HP
| 10 HP | 25 HP | 50 HP | 100 HP | 250 HP | 500 HP | 1000 HP |