no curation reward would mean few votes.
Not on Earth. Which social media platform that has votes but does not provide curation rewards has few votes?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
no curation reward would mean few votes.
Not on Earth. Which social media platform that has votes but does not provide curation rewards has few votes?
If one wants to be part of the facebook, youtube, twitter, and reddit crowd, that would apply. On steem and on Hive tokenization ahs been a part of it from the beginning. If I remember right at one point either facebook or your tube removed the like, (thumbs up), people did not like that and it was restored in short order. Blurt has no curation reward, or at my last visit there none.
If the people on Hive want to do away with curation then there is no point to being on Hive verse being on facebook, twitter, youtube, or reddit. If your vote only rewards post then self voting would run rampant, and hive would be nothing more than a token mining operation.
All curation rewards are is token mining.
It is author rewards that are the seminal advance Steem originally introduced by distributing rewards to creators, not centralizing them in the wallets of platform owners. Curation rewards actually degrade this decentralization by financializing the distribution of rewards, and will eventually result in the same harm to the Hive rewards distribution mechanism that they have the IRL economy.
Folks like some content and dislike some. Folks like to say so, and votes provide that ability, which folks, substantially staked or otherwise, will use. It is extremely important to keep separate that human social function regarding ideas from the venal corruption endemic to financial manipulation. Far more predictable, and less easily corruptible, returns can be availed investors via the bank accounts @edicted proposes.
Curation rewards don't give people incentive to vote for good content. They create incentive to ignore the quality of content and cast votes to maximize financial returns, which is utterly contrary to the purpose of free speech.
It sounds reasonable, and we will be able to see how the concept works in real life on line. Blurt has no real significant curation rewards, in fact it cost people to vote. So the highest paid content should be the highest quality content. It does not appear that way on Blurt to me, but then perhaps it is the fee to vote.
Transactions on Hive also have a cost, the only thing that does not have a cost on Hive is the 2.5 down votes. With no incentives it quickly becomes a game of who has the most friends and family, who has the greater ability to buy votes from the ordinary user.
If there are no rewards for casting a vote, then why vote? I guess we will see when it comes down to removal of the curation rewards. The rewards both author and curation, are what set Hive apart from the four primary social sites. I for one hope we do not see the removal of curation rewards, and would like to see it return to a 75/25 split.
There are rewards for casting votes, and this is why they are cast on all platforms that enable voting. It is revealing that your representation only considers financial rewards as rewards, and completely fails to reckon all the other benefits and blessings of civilization.
In fact monetary rewards are not your own highest values, but you are not considering what is actually meaningful to you in your considerations, because the indoctrination we are subjected to fits you into the place you are intended to occupy in society, and the banksters imposing financialization IRL are succeeding in making you profitable to them thereby.
I have long observed that Hive, and Steem before it, was a social media platform, and it's purpose is not financial, but societal, which makes it's neglect of more substantial values than financial a perhaps fatal flaw. It certainly doomed Steem, by that exact mechanism.
It is notable that Hive maintains the exact governance mechanism today that enabled Sun Yuchen to seize Steem. Financialization is the enemy of society.
Curation rewards are financialization. Author rewards are definancialization, because they decentralize the economy and distribute rewards across society. Curation rewards do the opposite.
Not a clue what you mean by the entire sentence especially the part I mad bold.
The post and conversation were about the reward pool and curation rewards. My response was contained with the post in mind. There are only three platforms I have cast votes on, steem, hive, and blurt. It has been two months since I cast a vote on steem, and one month since a vote on blurt. So Hive is the only platform I still vote one.
This entire paragraph makes no sense in or out of context to the subject matter, pretend I am a pre-teen, and try speaking in a manner that does not seem to be talking down to or a demeaning manner. Now exactly what does that have to do with the content of the post talking about the pros and cons of doing away with the Reward pool?
Exactly how are the authors distributing rewards across society???? Are all the authors super nice communist that will take all the monies people have given them and then divide and divvy it up in equal shares back to society? What mechanism do they, (the authors), use to distribute rewards, what rewards are they distributing, where did the rewards they received come from?
Author rewards are not distributed by authors. The statement I make you so reply to is regarding the rewards distributed to authors on Hive, and I do not address subsequent distribution by those authors.
This is in fact the value of the reward pool. The economy is a vitally important part of society, and IRL it has been centralized to an unprecedented extent today. Worse, the rate of increasing centralization is itself increasing today. It is this decentralization author rewards effect that TRW and rewards pool haters attack. They seek financialization as is currently destroying the global economy today mirrored on Hive.
Broader distribution of economic assets, as author rewards effect, increases the salubrity and felicity of society by improving the circumstances of it's members. TRW only seeks his own felicity, and this is why he seeks to destroy the rewards pool and the felicity of society derived from it. He has bribed his way to a position as a consensus witness, and intends to profit when he and 19 of his ilk are the only beneficiaries of inflation, and the rewards pool is no more.
I do not think you actually comprehend how rewards work so poorly as you pretend, and you did in fact know that author rewards are received, not distributed, by authors. Accordingly, as I have no interest in pretense of nescience, I will leave you to it.