IF satoshi had kept all the btc to himself it would have no value now.
This is very true.
As long as hive is perceived to be unfair in its distribution nobody is going to play.
What's the solution?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
IF satoshi had kept all the btc to himself it would have no value now.
This is very true.
As long as hive is perceived to be unfair in its distribution nobody is going to play.
What's the solution?
Perfection is not an option.
We can only do what we can do.
The only real solution I see is vsc and spk.network taking off.
Number go up assuages much anxiety.
As for things we can control, I think I have been pretty clear.
Let the user attraction pool go to users.
IF 'too many' are dumping, stop voting rewards to them.
Then, at the least, we can say that we are trying to attract new users and keep the ones we have rather than the fact being that we give as much as we can to those that already have design breaking amounts.
IF I remember right, which isn't always the case, the pool was supposed to be a faucet that people could access through proving they were real people with the intent to bootstrap a currency, and not a way for those with the most to maintain their percentage of the whole.
We've spent the last 7 years playing it the latter way.
I'd like to see something new tried rather than repeating the same thing and expecting a new result.
Will that be a panacea?
Definitely not immediately, but we have to start digging our way out of the hole that greed has put us into at some point, IF we expect to escape the rut we are in.
In time, the 'fact' will change from 'give it all to the top' to 'really trying to attract and keep users'.
Maybe, after we have done that for a while, new people that haven't already encountered our current reputation will only know the new one.