RE: The main excuse for malicious down-voting is "Over-Rewarded Content..." What about the account making $10k+ PER DAY in spam comments?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
If I understand this right, and please anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this by explaining, but all of these top voters have some of the best curation% APR I have seen on the platform.
Is this how they are achieving that?
For the people who are upvoting comments to fund the hbdstabilzer, what is the purpose of this? Why doesn't the HBD stablizer just request 86k HBD/day instead of 76k HBD/day so that nobody has to upvote those comments, and then the voting power from these curation groups can then go to actual content creators?
Am I missing something here?
You can see the curation APR of anyone by going here and changing the @name
https://hivestats.io/@blocktrades
EDIT: The above comments seem to conclude that the reason there is a 12% APR on HBD holdings is due to the stablizer.
That is not something I have kept up with, but I do see in my wallet it says it is 12% if I have the savings in HBD.
I am still unsure about what reason specifically is needed for upvoting comments vs just asking for more in the HBD payout via the DHF. To me, it seems like asking for more in the DHF would pass the proposal on the vote so I don't understand why comments are being voted on.
YES!
Interesting and makes sense although i don't understand everything it could involve, possibly also moves rep up ? if more money was needed it could just be increased, agreed.
I supported this proposal in the beggining as a way to stabilize the HBD, there is a big part of the comunity that will / would support this idea because of having a backed dollar coin which was listed since steemit, but there was no code to support it, there was an account there doing this experiment before the fork, because it was created with a low supply it's weird.
How would it work ? I don't know, most fiat pegged coins out there have way more supply which makes it more logic for the coin to be worth less and control or mantain the 1$ value, the backed dollar coin from steemit and hive has a lower supply than the native coin, i agree that this "stabilizer" doesn't seem a good solution long term, but it's out of my reach to sugest anything and i don't know if there are solutions being worked on.
This argument of overrewarding, like by what criteria ? India, USA, Europe, Russia, China ? And what about the matrix of withdrawl, is the user withdrawing every month or did he became a millionaire by holding, and why or what is bad ? There doesn't seem to be a criteria defined. Mostly it seems attacks on independent journalism and tought.
PS: Just to sum up that basically the coin will rocket up if there is no "stabilizer", just like SBD is now.
PS2: That is an amazing project hivealive and it brings truth to light
Everyone who uses their voting power (10 votes per day) earns the same curation rewards, except for being downvoted or late votes (after 24 hours).
This didn't used to be the case, but now all you get for curation rewards is a mostly-fixed ROI for participating in using your stake to direct where rewards go rather than being completely passive.
Why not just ask for 10k more per day in funding proposal instead of getting 10k from upvoted comments tho?
My guess = because that doesn't have 50% curation rewards.
As stated elsewhere, it doesn't matter what someone votes for in terms of curation, as long as it isn't being heavily downvoted. Curation rewards are just for participation. Once you factor in someone's stake, their curation rewards are largely fixed, as long as they bother to vote.
If you don't like this, you'll need more downvoting so curation rewards actually reflect voting in accordance with stakeholder consensus on the best use for rewards. I'm all in favor of that, as you know.
And as I've stated in response many times, and nobody has addressed, the big difference is that by voting on content, stake is decentralized because half goes to the authors, while in this case y'all are able to maintain your 50% curation, AND keep the rest by sending it all to the "fund," where just a couple accounts (the ones upvoting these spam comments) decide how it's rewarded.
It's just self-voting with extra steps.
I essentially agree with this. I don't know how deliberate this outcome is and I don't think @blocktrades exactly needs more cash to the extent that they would shut down opportunities for developers - HOWEVER, at least based on historic outcomes, I haven't ever even planned to launch a proposal in Hive because the main gatekeepers to which proposals get funded seem to be operating in a centralised/cliquey way. Perhaps I am wrong and we are only ever seeing a snapshot of a situation via posts online. This is part of why regular video chats are so essential and so missing on Hive - from what I've seen. It's very easy to fill in the gaps with our imagination and reach wrong conclusions when all we see of some people is a few paragraphs of text.
In any case, I don't think having the author rewards pool returned to the proposals pool in a way that bypasses witness consensus is in the spirit of how Hive is designed. Granted, stakeholders have the ability to do that, but it definitely does seem off.
There is nothing in the "spirit of how Hive is designed" (or Steem before) that is contradictory with posts being voted to support development work, marketing, promotions, platform resources, or other such efforts. The original Steem white paper discusses "subjective proof of work" where stakeholders vote to allocate funding to "work", the determination of the value of which is entirely subjective, including examples of supporting charities or political agendas. It was never and was never intended to be only about content.
Prior to the DHF, voting individual post payouts was the only way of funding such efforts. The DHF adds another mechanism to handle these sorts of things (with a significant benefit being that it is easier to define a specific budget and payment schedule for a project, as opposed to the rather erratic way that post payouts do, both of which were recognized as major logistical obstacles with funding larger or longer term efforts through posts), but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with using the original method to fund these things, including by sending that through the DHF (and thereby gaining access to the budgeting and payment scheduling system).
When I referred to the spirit of how Hive is designed, I was referring to the deliberate inclusion of a worker pool, designed to fund projects - alongside an author pool, designed to fund authors (of content). Granted, software can be content and can be subjectively valued, thus upvoted from the author pool - but as you have pointed out, that approach is shaky and not really fit for purpose.. Which is why we have the worker proposal pool.
Well that's fine, but this isn't Steem and almost every time I quote from the Steem whitepaper I get shot down by the authors of the Hive whitepaper who say 'This isn't Steem. Get over it'.
Yes, there is nothing that stops people upvoting software projects or infrastructure facilitation and yes that's how things were often done on Steem. However, I'm just pointing out that trying to correct a core failure of the blockchain to regulate HBD using a pool that isn't really meant to be for that use is always going to cause some controversy, especially among content creators.
It is well known in business/marketing psychology that people will care much more about losing something than they do about gaining something. This isn't an opinion of mine, but established scientific consensus based on numerous experiments. For this reason alone it is important to have clean lines in terms of the usage of reward pools. I am saying this from the perspective of personally knowing numerous medium sized web personalities (and many other smaller ones) who refuse to use Hive because of the perception they have of all of this stuff (which didn't come from me telling them btw - I actively encourage people to use Hive, including writing a full user guide for new users).
Ultimately, the big stakeholders will do what they want and will get the outcome as a result. I'm just offering my insights as a professional business systems engineer and digital marketer with a strong focus in psychology. Every time I have spoken up from this perspective, the Hive crowd has heckled and shut me down at key moments. In most of these cases time has proven me to be correct, e.g. the naming of Hive being controversial for numerous reasons and also causing an SEO failure due to the high competitiveness for all relevant keyphrases.. Differentiation is the magic of marketing.
What if a bunch of big whales buy into Hive and literally do nothing but massively upvote their own pet projects? They would dominate the reward pool and totally break POB in every way - but most especially in it's value as a marketing device.
I agree it is not Steem but I don't agree that means the entire subjective rewarding pool concept has been transformed into all content and nothing but content. That never happened.
If they own it, at least in a dominant way, they can do as they like. If there are other stakeholders who don't agree, they can downvote. I've always maintained that downvoting is essential to establishing a consensus on how the reward pool is to be directed, otherwise it all a shitshow of stakeholders, big and small, voting their own pet projects (including recurrent "content" posts, which is a form of pet project, after all), and which often doesn't benefit the broader platform very much.
The current authors of the Hive Whitepaper like to sell the idea (which most people never agreed to) that Hive as a mechanism to reward content is wrong and that actually it is a more diverse platform which shouldn't be thought of as a way to reward even content. I find this totally insane, but that's what they have said to me. I didn't even bother going into why that doesn't make sense because the reasons are so obvious and despite one of them making a show of saying he'd do a meeting with me to discuss the relevant details, he just paid lip service in private and never did a meeting.
I don't pretend to know exactly what is going or why because there are too many people involved and I don't have all the information. I am, however, used to creating and marketing large systems which share that same problem and in general the way to deal with it most effectively is to capitalise on 'code is law' and to build in clear and transparent rules which prevent controversy that effects large numbers of people personally and thus helps sustain morale and sentiment. People are too used to being fully financially exploited and enslaved in the offline world to be ready to trust that any project like this simply won't repeat that same pattern. Great care needs to be taken (much more than has been so far) to address this marketing chasm.
Since I am on this topic, I spoke personally to Steemit inc's marketing guy for a while at Steemfest and was shocked at how totally unprepared for the role he was. It's good that we now have a pro marketing company in the US working on Hive, but User Experience goes far beyond what they are doing - it needs to start with the very core code of the blockchain and grow from there.
Yes and they can totally change Hive into something completely unrelated to it's stated intent - but it makes sense to take action to prevent this if we are to protect the TIME and investments made by 10s of thousands of people who bought into a concept that has specifically designated boundaries.
Heh, I don't think I've ever seen it, but I likely don't agree with all of it.
Well yeah, there were maybe one or two people ever at Steemit who were actually competent. And the results of the Steemit era showed that. Ancient history as they say.
Maybe, this kind of gets philosophical, like what is Hive and whether having functioning governance is a good idea or whether blockchains should strive to obstruct governance in favor of practical immutability. Okay as a theoretical discussion topic, but, in practice, Hive isn't set up to be immutable against the wishes of its stakeholders. At all. For better or worse.
Going back to the Steem white paper (sorry, but it is still relevant), the way you earn investment from TIME is by earning stake and keeping it, which makes you a voting stakeholder. If you earn a lot of rewards over the years and sell them, you consumed time but you did not invest it, and you don't have much of a say. That's fine IMO.
For me this is more about having a clear mission statement, which is essential for successful marketing. If you say 'Hive is x and it benefits you y without risking z', then you have a sales pitch. If you say 'Hive is open to interpretation and might totally change next week, depending on what the richest people want..' then you have a laughing stock for most people.
Anarchy is great, it is needed - but vehicles like this space are served by focus and some kind of agreed upon direction that is clear. It's not reasonable to expect anyone to feel comfortable investing their time and money into building a presence on a platform if the platform can so dramatically shift that it becomes unrecognisable.
ok, but my point is that whether you get reward payouts or not, you have put time into your presence here. if changes occur that result in you being unable to experience what you were sold and what you read 'on the tin' (in the web 3.0 shop), then you are likely going to be pissed and 'leave bad reviews'. It doesn't take much of that to kill a project.
I'm just frustrated that even I, as someone who studies Hive, am seeing such differing 'visions' of what it is from people in key positions, that I feel very pulled from one direction to another just thinking about Hive at this point. This is a big part of why most people won't use Hive at this point as far as I am aware. I strongly understand that the more certainty there is baked into a system like this, the more comfortable people feel using it (provided it is not so unchanging as to become stagnant). The idea of routing author rewards towards development funding as a key 'feature' of the system (via upvotes) seems hacky, unprofessional and ignorant of user psychology/experience. The struggle between 'engineering' and 'marketing' is ongoing - just have one brain hemisphere in one camp and the other in the other. lol.
It's not really what "the richest" want. There are probably people richer than me with smaller stakes and who knows I might be richer than some of the people with bigger stakes.
Nobody cares how rich you are, what matters is how much stake you have, and this matters for smaller stakeholders too. If all of the bigger stakeholders agree on direction, that's usually how it is going to go, but often larger stakeholders don't agree or don't care, and the influence of smaller stakeholders is magnified. This is all very much like any business with shareholders, and not all that strange once you recognize it for what it is.
By 'rich' I meant 'have the ability to access whatever stake is needed to affect change to the blockchain'.
I'm just pointing out that any niggles that exist in potential investors' minds regarding the governance and stake can be minimised by very clear delineation of every part of the system in easy to understand terms. e.g. 'author reward pool is for authors of posts by content creators' and DHF is for development. Even if the numbers are adjusted so that authors gain nothing by the change and the same money is moved into DEV somehow without the upvoting - it would imo result in a better taste in the mouth for many observers. Minimising niggles is important at this point I think because there is so much negative perception of Steem and Hive - often unwarranted, but there's no way to clean it up without being super focused on the small points.
One thing I've suggested is to route all the inflation (except maybe some or all of witness rewards, which are needed for operational security) through DHF. Stakeholders could then vote a desired amount into a better-defined content fund (or multiple funds), to the extent that this is seen as a useful expense for marketing, airdrop, etc. It could also go to subsidize second layer communities/platforms, to the extent they are seen as helping to promote or grow Hive (some of the existing DHF proposals are close to this).
No one seems to see this as a big priority with limited development resources (and I don't disagree necessarily), to the extent it is even agreed with at all as a concept (likely mixed).
I think that could well be a good move, but as you say would really be an experiment that would likely cost quite a bit to code and test. Maybe a layer 2 implementation of this in the layer 2 reward pools might be more manageable. In general I see layer 2 spaces as an opportunity for experimentation and want to see the cost of entry to them lowered as much as possible. If the cost is lowered close to zero then they can literally be test spaces for changes to the user experience of layer 1, among other things.
I expect that in the coming year I will be working on customising more than one layer 2 token, so I'll be exploring the options for expansion/change - at the moment I don't really know what is and isn't possible.
That's not correct.
First, it isn't true that only a few accounts decide where DHF funds go. If you look at the level of voting necessary to fund something, it is far more than a few accounts. It takes 29 million HP to fund anything, and the largest account is 15 million and it drops off quickly from there. There has never been a DHF proposal approved by only a few accounts and there likely never will. It is always a broad swath of stakeholders voting.
Second if you look at the where the DHF funds are going none of them support the or even benefit the largest stakeholders, with the possible exception of one that is supporting the SPK network (I'm not an expert on what this does and I don't vote for it). They're all supporting developers, community projects, or platform resources (such as Keychain or HiveSQL) in a very clear way. Notably, the largest voter (@blocktrades) probably also spends the most supporting the platform (including much of the core development, and running the servers), and hasn't even gotten funding from the DHF for it.
In no way is any of this self-voting. The necessity of DHF proposals to clear the hurdle of the return proposal makes self voting MUCH harder and less likely (and much, much less frequent in practice), compared to the post voting where self-voting or circle voting or vote trading is trivial, and only sometimes (rarely in practice) inhibited by downvotes.
I just skimmed through the voters on the active proposals and many of them are there because of votes from less than 10 accounts. Some of them might be there anyway due to attracting lots of smaller votes. I don't really have full data on the decentralisation of the proposal voting - I might add it to Hive Alive when I get time.
It's certainly true that my perception of the worker pool is based on information from earlier in Hive's journey - at that time it was exactly as I described, nothing got in without a small number of whales voting for it.
Because voting for the stabilizer is also a way to fund the DHF itself more (unlike a proposal).
So lets say that the proposal was getting 67k daily and is getting like 10k daily from upvotes on comments.
Is there a reason for why the proposal can't ask for 77k? I am assuming there is some sort of hard cap that one account can ask for maybe, or that the voters decided 67k is enough and others still want to continue so they upvote comments?
The DHF has a limited amount of funds (which voting for the comments increase, as @blocktrades told you).
There is a cap on the total DHF budget. As I indicated in my other comment, the stabilizer has consistently maxed it out. The comment rewards are in addition, to supplement DHF funds, not instead.
The only hard cap on the DHF is that only 1% of the total amount can be spent daily, so a proposal could ask for 77K HBD/day right now. But such a proposal would be functionally different from voting on the comments: a proposal that funds the stabilizer would only increase the DHF funds to the extent that the stabilizer makes a profit (because the base amount from the proposal is just recycled back to the DHF and only the profit gets added). Voting on the comments increases the amount of DHF funds much more directly.
I realized the above might not be clear enough, so I've added some example numbers. Let's assume that the hbdstabilizer is profiting at 0.1% per day right now (this is just a hypothetical number for the sake of an example, profits for hbdstabilizer vary a lot depending on HBD market pricing and I don't know what the current profit percentage is). An extra 10K per day as a proposal would then add 10K HBD * .1% = 10 HBD profit to the DHF. Compare this to 10K HBD added via voting on the hbdstabilizer comments, and you can see it's a dramatic difference (1000x more).
Thanks for the response. I missed all of the posts explaining these things
The DHF is very limited. We're already close to maxed out on the DHF budget for hdbstabilizer (we were literally maxed out 100% for months until recently but now a few hundred below and could use another proposal, which I will do when I get a chance).
I've read many of the comments. I'm thankful for all the back and forth. It creates transparency, taking this past from a five alarm fire to, "oh, that's what's going on." Thank you for speaking up and out... to everyone, really. It helps flush everything out.
Here 👆 herE