I have gone to banks and applied for loans in the past. I am aware how documents requirements are.
So why do you think less would be okay here? And why do you think it's okay to retaliate when the application is denied due to a lack of information?
Is there a “professional” business plan on why people should vote your witness.
Is there a cost breakdown how you spent the money from your witness earning?
You're comparing apples to oranges. There will always be 20 top witnesses, and it's up to you who you regard the most trustable and competent to fill these spots.
Way to show you have no idea what the responsibilities of a witness are.
I know it is not done for any witnesses. However I do believe running a witness is also a for profit endeavor, because if it is not then there is no incentive to run the witness.
I believe, hive consumer and stakeholders, someone like me are exploited on a daily basis. By witnesses by proposal makers who are also witnesses. I also think we don't have a voice. Some of the oligarchy that is hive doesn't care what the consumer thinks or wants.
Great, just ignore my questions. Blocked here too, you're insufferable.
I have not ignored any questions. The explanation were provided on the SL proposal. Yes, it is not to your satisfaction. So your decision is acceptable.
There were other requests too from other major hive stakeholders, for example, having a hive logo and message on landing page.
That is created.
Blocking people is a personal choice. I am an expert in that trade. Many thanks.
Will we move on? From the side it looks like kids in the playground. He doesn't want to support proposal for now, no point to publicly try to convince him, just re-group bring on new plan and hope that some people will change their mind - is it hard to understand?
This is a public discussion in a public forum. You can choose not to participate. Is that correct?
Yes. Wish you great day :)
Sure you did.
Instead of staying on topic, you invent some requirement for witnesses to break down cost.
Sorry I missed that. No it shouldn’t be different.
However, it has also been done here in the past and happening now. Is that right? No.
Should there be “retaliation”? No. Of course not. But as you said people can choose.
I try to learn from past mistakes.
And you chose.
And then played stupid and expected me to explain the difference between a job and a grant to you. I know you're not that dense, your mission is clouding your judgement.
The personal interaction and treatment of a fellow human is helping me to choose. Have a good day and thank you for the discussion.
forgive me, but i think both of you can be partially correct. you have good points about the game thing, i havent looked at their balance sheet but maybe it is a bit of a money blackhole, and azircon does kind of have a point about witnesses holding public roles in dpos systems, at least in terms of expected levels of transparency and such. i do think that cost outlays etc are relatively basic asks, and i vaguely remember other witnesses doing cost breakdowns.
There's a fixed amount of (top) witness positions, which will always be filled. Their job is to make sure that the chain is running, and that all transactions are included. This is what they're paid to do. Anything on top of that is voluntary.
Yes, it might make sense to choose your votes according to what the individual contributes to the ecosystem, especially when they're in the higher ranks. But how much additional work besides running the servers can you realistically expect for ~$2k a month?
The comparison doesn't make any sense at all.
i mean, if cost to run servers results in profit, then you might think ~24k a year is trivial, but consider the majority userbase of steemit and hive, numbers wise, were people who were using the platform for supplemental income for day to day living, and there are a lot of countries in the world where even a few hundred dollars a month is still a big deal. of course, there is the issue of large wallet cartel type activity to keep power or generate roi, but i guess it comes down to differences of opinion on what the "ultimate" purpose of any such platform would be, right?
which are matters of perspective, and if we look at it from other dimensions of hive potentially growing in the future and the number being not so small, then transparency roadmaps start to make even more sense. like if witnesses start making hundreds of thousands a year, then it would certainly be a hot subject again like it was in previous boom phases.
that said, i think both of yall ended up kind of talking past each other just because yall have differences of opinion on the other thing (i did look at the game, and it does seem like... a very... well, dont want to offend anyone, but lets just say there are a lot of nft card games out there).
my 0.000002 "hive" (ill have to get used to this) about the game itself, is that people probably bought cards to speculate, as investments or to win tournaments, but having heavy tournament payouts and (i presume) salaries probably resulted in a not so good financial situation. card games themselves are in a rough spot i think. i mean hell, look at gwent. game is basically unspported now, and the cards are imo stunning, and they didnt push monetization that hard. you are competing against online card games that are FREE TO PLAY.
do not expect to draw users to your game if your game is also not FREE TO PLAY. any game that REQUIRES cards to be purchased will not succeed. look at valves failed attempt to make such a game, for example.
i dont think the game will succeed even if they do pump money into advertising. nowadays, advertising related to crypto just makes people assume youre scamming them. and if they see a game that requires you buying cards to play, and they see that theyre up vs players who have tons of high powered, purchased cards... well... its going to feel rigged, because thats basically how all games that require money feel for newcomers.
which, is an important thing to note, because so many free to play phone games (think your standard clash of clans clone) cater to whales, who beat up on new players, who then suffer attrition and quit the quite unfun if no spend money game, so the game has to spend tons of money to keep luring in new unaware players for the rich to continue to beat up on (ingame).
making a SUSTAINABLE game requires you to have the game mechanics themselves be FUN.
but that starts a whole other line of reasoning of, is it societally good to make an ADDICTING product.
ill stop now before i continue, i doubt im even talking about this in the right place.