HiveOn

If there is no incentive for voting, you'll soon look at a dead network. Donation systems do not work

There is always an incentive for voting: getting a better network, a better experience. Look at Reddit, do they need monetary rewards to get good governance? Much the contrary!

didn't work for other DPoS chains. the incentive of a better network may be in your and my interest, but the majority does not care.

see bitshares or EOS. EOS only started to work after REX incentives

Don't forget this is a content-centric chain. The incentives already are different.

> Donation systems do not work

• https://www.patreon.com
• https://opencollective.com
• https://gitcoin.co/grants

The incentives layer (like special bonuses, unlocked content, etc) could either be handled via applications (which would be the most scalable way) or there could be special operations.

> If there is no incentive for voting, you'll soon look at a dead network.

I disagree. Did you read the full post? 🙂 I don't see the value proposition of Hive in being a social-media blockchain.

> I don't see the value proposition of Hive in being a social-media blockchain.

you probably missed what was happening last month. if steem was not a social-media blockchain, there would be no hive. we would all still be on steem happily waiting for justin to pump it, just like his tron followers.

Absolutely agree, the current reward system is kinda a disaster.

It sadly is. There are upsides of course, but having it as the only real way for people to earn with their stake is a huge flaw.

I don't understand this viewpoint on a couple levels. First, although it's not a perfect comparison, I liken passive staking rewards to a dividend of sorts. Investors can make money off of trading, dividends, or share appreciation (and probably a bunch of other ways I'm not an educated enough investor to know about.) Even with pure staking, investors are looking at what, maybe a 6-8% ROI a year? That won't wake them up or justify the risk. Investors are absolutely here for price appreciation, not dividends, so on that merit alone it's not like the rewards pool is the only way for people to earn with their stake.

I feel like the proposed staking system could actually be worse ROI for passive investors. Under this pure staking system, a passive investor would probably have a harder time outperforming inflation than currently. The current percentage of inflation dedicated to staking rewards, combined with payouts that can be achieved from passively delegating to reputable curation projects or dApp communities can often outpace the inflation rate.

I'm sure lots of Hive power isn't used optimally at present. I wonder if anyone could figure those numbers out... Every inactive account with Hive power sitting in it, every time a user sits at 100% voting power for a few hours or a day... those all create the edges that active users profit from. As soon as pure staking is switched on, everyone is playing optimal game theory. Many more Hive tokens start flowing to accounts with lost keys, or users who were here for the boom and left tokens parked that they'll never come back to, or probably only to sell off if they do revisit. Right now all those folks are the bread and butter. They're the people who pay the gym membership but never go, thereby making it a lot better for the people who do!

Particularly with potentially shorter power down times in the mix alongside these beefier staking rewards, I'm sure we'd see lots more Hive powered up too. Another example of the "gym rat" Hive power holders benefitting from lots of liquid Hive that could easily disappear under other conditions. I think it would be very close that the amount of liquid Hive on site and on exchanges would just about offset the percentage of inflation going to witnesses and the HPS, making pure staking rewards very close to breakeven with the inflation rate. Right now, effort allows small accounts and big investors alike to drastically outperform their holdings and achieve radically higher returns on investment. This pure staking system works a long way toward negating that.

If everyone just wants to put in $1000 for 1000 tokens, and get 1100 tokens back in a year... that still have a value of $1000 because all the new tokens are inflation... it just makes no sense to me. Price appreciation of the token and adding value to the network is the only path to profit, not staking dividends. And if price appreciation is only achieved by luring investors in with the promise of big staking rewards... then it really does bring on a Ponzi type structure.

I kinda agree... but we should definitely find a solution for engaging people positively when they come in with little knowledge and high hopes... a real life example of this going wrong is Nigeria.

No it's not. The problem is PoB is not working optimally due to people being incentivized to use curation trails, poor algorithms that don't know how to recommend content I actually want to consume and an overall clunky UI.

Your idea pretty much only incentivizes people to just input their staking settings and leave in order to gain their rewards.

We've had this blockchain for 2 weeks and witnesses complained that Steemit Inc was the bottleneck to making this place better. Now that they are gone, everything is broken?

This proposal is trash.

Look at whaleshares for a donation system. It hasn't been the best. People see the staking rewards they get as "their's" and not everyone is going to be participating. Our current system defiantly isn't perfect, but it has incentives to vote(maybe we can add even more incentives to vote for others, ex: reduced reward for selfvote).

> Look at whaleshares for a donation system.

You're comparing apples with oranges and whaleshares was flawed from the start. Bad example. 😕

> maybe we can add even more incentives to vote for others, ex: reduced reward for selfvote

They'll just create another account.

I already told you that I liked the idea of being able to redirect a part of your inflation reward to another author as post reward. However, I have a few objections to your proposal.

a) Governance

I think the biggest objection is the impact of governance, short powerdown times = extremely dangerous for governance. This is two fold:

• If everyone that powers up can participate in governance:
  > Easy way to manipulate governance with a high stake quickly and then leave quickly again (Makes an exchange attack more likely)

• If only long powerup times can participate:
  > The overall stake participating in governance will shrink significantly making a 51% attack significantly more likely.

b) Incentive:

At the moment holding hive gives you an incentive to participate in voting and engaging on the platform. I agree that this incentive also leads to wrong decision-making but I also believe that significantly less people will engage and significantly more people will just enjoy receiving the inflation and do nothing.

If there is inflation, this should incentive people to engage.

> a) Governance

> I think the biggest objection is the impact of governance, short powerdown times = extremely dangerous for governance. This is two fold:

> If everyone that powers up can participate in governance:
Easy way to manipulate governance with a high stake quickly and then leave quickly again (Makes an exchange attack more likely)

Does this mean you didn't read my post fully? 😄

Here's what I wrote:

> - You decide that you want to take part in governance voting & DHF voting. However, you need to have staked your HIVE for at least 4 weeks to be eligible to take part in it. So you need to wait 2 more weeks until you're able to do that.
> - The reason for that is that individuals can't just buy stake (HIVE), overtake governance and then sell the stake again.

> At the moment holding hive gives you an incentive to participate in voting and engaging on the platform. I agree that this incentive also leads to wrong decision-making but I also believe that significantly less people will engage and significantly more people will just enjoy receiving the inflation and do nothing.

No, I disagree. Inflation should incentivize hodling to stabilize the asset, which in return makes HIVE more attractive as there is less risk about it dumping hard. Why do you think MCO is so stable? Or why ETH is going to become much more stable? You need to have 32 ETH - currently min 4k USD. That's a lot for the average joe. At ATH, that's over 50k.

I did ready your post fully, but it seems you did not read my comment fully.
Either way you do it, it is bad for governance.

The only reasonable thing is:
- The same powerdown time for all operations (To avoid splitting up stake).
- Long powerdown time to stop exchanges from powering up to manipulate.

Like some people below pointed out already. Why should we hunt for those few thousand investors to invest in hive but have a shitton of competition but instead we hut for app creators and consumers to buy hive for RC etc.

> The same powerdown time for all operations (To avoid splitting up stake).

Splitting up stake how?

> Like some people below pointed out already. Why should we hunt for those few thousand investors to invest in hive but have a shitton of competition but instead we hut for app creators and consumers to buy hive for RC etc.

Well, they aren't really investors themselves, are they? So I'll take that opinion with a grain of salt. Also, there are far more than a few thousand investors.

> Splitting up stake how?

If 50% of the stake is liquid, 25% is short term staked and 25% is long term staked. That's less stake then voting for governance.

> Well, they aren't really investors themselves, are they? So I'll take that opinion with a grain of salt. Also, there are far more than a few thousand investors.

I agree with them. I don't want Hive to be a "object of speculation" but instead a useful token. That's the only way you establish a stable price on the long term on a token.

This way, it doesn't matter what the market sentiment is, the price stays pretty stable (compare it to FIAT). If it is a speculation object people will pump and dump and that is bad for developers.

What we want is a stable price that is dictated by the utility of the token. (For me mainly by the amount of RC). Thus, if there are 100k users here using apps, all of them will need RC to use the apps and the apps will make sure their users will be able to do so. That creates continuous demand and a stable price.

You have a good point, the rewards pool is not economically sustainable and does not work in a way that creates value. Looking forward to RC delegations, though I would prefer a decentralised protocol for that like EOS rex over a centralised solution like dlease.

> Why should developers integrate/build on Hive

That's going to be a tough one. Nothing against custom json's, but with the recent events, for many the reliability/decentralisation of DPOS-based chains is questionable. While high fees and centralisation in mining pools are a problem of POW chains, upcoming solutions like Ethereum's 2.0 POW/POS-combination seem much more appealing, especially for applications that care about the immutability of user funds.
Bigger blockchains offer VC funds, support for transaction costs (Hive-equivalent: RC) or other incentives for developers building on their chain. Hive's HPS can't compete with that currently, currently almost exclusively projects benefiting the whole ecosystem get funded while apps without connections to large stakeholders don't have a chance.

> You take a look at hive.blog and upvote a post. There are no rewards, just likes & dislikes. Because you want to support that individual anyway, you direct a percentage cap of 0.5% of your staking rewards to him/her; with a daily-cap of 4 HIVE, a total cap of 25 HIVE and a max duration of 2 weeks.

Isn't that what Whaleshares is doing? They haven't been particularly successful with removing author/curation rewards. Proof of brain used to be Steem's/Hive's big selling point (also for SMTs/HMTs), still wondering if something could be tweaked to make a rewards pool work.. HF21/22 brought some improvements at least by making vote selling less profitable

> You have a good point, the rewards pool is not economically sustainable and does not work in a way that creates value. Looking forward to RC delegations, though I would prefer a decentralised protocol for that like EOS rex over a centralised solution like dlease.

Good point!

> Isn't that what Whaleshares is doing? They haven't been particularly successful with removing author/curation rewards.

Because whaleshares is garbage. I really don't understand how they fit into the equation, just because they made some changes that are seemingly somewhat similar (which it isn't IMO).

> Proof of brain used to be Steem's/Hive's big selling point (also for SMTs/HMTs), still wondering if something could be tweaked to make a rewards pool work.

Because Ned was too lazy to shift gears. He announced SMTs in 2017. That was the right time to release them. Right now, we should fix Hive first before we release sub-tokens IMO.

The code is done though, isn't it? Only some testing remains.

Releasing SMTs will allow apps to have their own PoB going on, even if we know it doesn't work perfectly. Other's might just use it as a security (like ICOs with Eth) or a fun way to create their own coin.

It is extremely powerful to allow people to create their own crypto with a few clicks. This should definitely be released as it is, and the main Hive token can then change to work as you described in your post.

There are potentially millions of content creators in this world and potentially hundreds of millions, if not billions of content consumers in this world. There are far fewer investors in this world and even fewer crypto investors. So rather than attempting to cater to the tiniest market, I feel it's wise to have a look at the largest market.

Most of the issues can be solved by simply embracing those hundreds of millions of content consumers. I can't see too many investors wanting to support content if all that does is shrink their ROI, especially in crypto.

Working for likes would be like wasting a day on Facebook.

Content consumers can become the investors this platform wants. Millions of people willing to buy tokens and stake them so they can support content forever without ever throwing their money away, PLUS they get to sit back, have fun, and get paid to be entertained. That is the market this platform needs to tap into. Consumers already spent billions annually on things like subscriptions, handing out tips or donations, and purchasing individual units. Every time they do that, they throw their money away... but here, this platform, even as it stands today, offers the consumer a far better deal. Tap into that market and watch the value of the token climb. The fact is, the consumer spends the money anyway. So we need to find ways to attract that money, here.

Purchasing tokens and pushing a like button. Anyone can do that. Start throwing in all these complexities and percentages and all you'll get are a tiny handful of crypto investors.

This doesn't need to be a 'social media' platform. Focus on content production and consumption, treat it like the entertainment industry. If there were millions of dedicated paying consumers with staked tokens willing to vote, you're not going to have a tiny handful of accounts reaching trending consistently. Content will rise and fall and rise and fall as new content and new consumers contribute.

That consumer (curator), millions of them, is the missing piece of the puzzle. Create a scenario within your mind. Add in everything we have now, then add in those missing dedicated consumers. Simply market this platform to those consumers. It's not every day someone walks past a busker on the street and gets handed a quarter just for being there. I don't know of any books or magazines that have coins taped to each page. I would never tip someone if I knew I could spend what I spend on tips in a year, buy crypto, still tip, and get a return on that investment, rather than throwing my money away. Consumers now simply do not know of the opportunities and benefits this platform has to offer them. They're stuck in the old ways, not realizing there's a new way.

> There are potentially millions of content creators in this world and potentially hundreds of millions, if not billions of content consumers in this world. There are far fewer investors in this world and even fewer crypto investors. So rather than attempting to cater to the tiniest market, I feel it's wise to have a look at the largest market.

Ned, is that you? Just kidding 😜

I heard that argument before and while there most def. is some truth in it, I find it pretty far fetched that those millions of content creators are coming to Hive. For what? To get some rewards? Decentralized content that the majority doesn't need?

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

We've been on this "social media roadtrip" for 4 years and the most successful application that actually generates relevant revenue outside the rewards pool is Splinterlands - and that's not a social media application.

Not many people will continue to go on this road. Either we get our shit together in 2020 and 2021 or the most skilled people will head to other projects.

Content creators follow the money, famous or not. Youtube didn't have celebrities until they saw what they once considered to be 'nobodies' making millions creating videos.

Sometimes I wish I could just project my vision into the minds of those who can't see it. Then they'd go, "Oh! That's how!"

I've failed at explaining this for years. Content generates revenue. The business model has lasted for thousands of years. It works. Marketing to the consumer, rather than the content producer would be a step in the right direction, I think. One song can generate millions of dollars. Content creators already offer their consumers perks. The entire entertainment industry business model exists here, as is.

Do you know why most big names failed on Steem? They didn't produce exclusive content and they didn't encourage their following to purchase tokens so they could tip forever. They didn't teach their consumers they get a return on that investment. Those big names came and got a few big votes, for a little while. In other words, they came to perform in front of a handful of people, and then made sure to keep the rest of the seats in the stadium empty, because those big names had no idea what this platform had to offer. All they saw was the money on the surface and didn't know how to run their account here like a business.

> most skilled people will head to other projects.

That's the thing. I don't want to leave to create my vision elsewhere. ;)

We should all work together, combining our visions. Creating options rather than going in one direction only.

> Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

We haven't even remotely come close to trying what I'm talking about. Not once has this concept ever been marketed to consumers and for the most part content creators keep getting handed the crappy end of the deal. I need a place where I can work towards a future and I think most content producers here would agree a future is important. Some of you folks made thousands upon thousands of dollars selling votes and making it nearly impossible for a content producer to grow organically and truly shine. I came out of Steem after working for many years with nearly nothing and it certainly wasn't due to lack of effort. I think content producers should have a voice on Hive now and the days of getting screwed over should be behind us.

> Do you know why most big names failed on Steem? They didn't produce exclusive content and they didn't encourage their following to purchase tokens so they could tip forever. They didn't teach their consumers they get a return on that investment. Those big names came and got a few big votes, for a little while...

Most of them almost were not mentioning steem to people that follow them. and you are right, they did not understand it, and did not try to explain it to their user base.

this also reminded me of the crypto people complaining about censorship of their content on youtube, but non of them are trying to use (and move) their user base to a decentralized crypto sphere (i know there are no a lot of options but if they are in crypto, they are pioneers, so they need to puss it).

Big names with big followings can come here, tell their following to stop donating, spend the money on Hive, power it up. Nobody is going to complain if someone was reaching the trending page daily without the help of current whales and orcas because they encouraged enough followers to come a tip with votes. If a massive following pulled 3 million HP from the market to support one content creator, great! That massive following has NINE MORE VOTES to use in a day. One creator with a business mind posting exclusives here can do a lot. Now scale it up. Purchasing enough HP for a vote worth two cents doesn't rise with the value of the token either. Man I wish I had more time to talk about this right now... I'm just rambling... You get it... And that's cool.

Rather than whales becoming starstruck and voting for big shots, they should teach these big shots about the potential. Otherwise they just take the money and run all while nobody is even leaving comments under their posts here (on Steem when it happened).

[IMAGE: https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/derangedvisions/3JlcilNh-micdrop.gif]

The biggest problem with Hive continues to be very obvious to me. It's too complicated to sign up and figure out what the hell you are doing for the average Joe.

There just needs to be a damn button at the top right where you sign up and your keys are generated, full stop, no cost. I know at least 5 people who I tried to get on board and they never got past trying to join before giving up. I realize that there is a spam account issue, but we have to find some way around this. It is crucial that account creation is simple, free and easy.

I know it's sad that not everyone is a computer nerd, but we have to put our best effort into solving this one massive, huge problem.

I also think people can't get their heads around the several different types of keys, and the idea that if they lose them they lose their accounts... But alas, this is the problem with all cryptocurrency related projects.

I agree with @nonameslefttouse, on pretty much all points. like this:

Content generates revenue

and especially this:

I can't see too many investors wanting to support content if all that does is shrink their ROI, especially in crypto.

The cold hard truth is that investors are looking for a way to increase their stake, not donate it. It's a nice though, but I really can't see it working out. This is probably a shitty example, but I've been a witness on Whaleshares (The steem clone) for about a year I think. The platform has been dying a slow death for quite some time now due to selfish and idiotic leadership, but the real nail in the coffin was the last hard fork which took away rewards and added 'tips'.

So basically you now get a daily staking reward and you can allocate part of it to your tipping bucket, and the rest to your whalestake. And by the way - if you forget to log in, your daily reward gets sent to the devfund account and you forfeit it. I vehemently opposed the fork (very politely) but they managed to push it through. (They also kicked me of the Witness discord as soon as the fork activated)

Of course, exactly what I expected to happen happened. Only the same 10 people use the platform (most of the are the top witnesses). The tips are lame and worthless, just like the Whaleshares token itself.

So I think we have to be very careful when we talk about changing the reward mechanism. We may end up dooming the project that we're trying to save!

Account creation is a barrier for many, indeed. Free accounts are fine but when it comes to attracting those dedicated paying consumers I'm talking about, they would need to know on their first day it's a better deal to purchase and powerup tokens in order to tip people, rather than throwing money away in tip form like they do everywhere else.

And as any content producer knows, there are hundreds of millions of dollars flying around these days. When it comes to crypto, we all know that would create demand for the token, and buying pressure is good. We also know, if it's only a basic tipping model, the content creator is better off going somewhere where those tips come in cash, because nobody buys crypto just to tip. They need incentives and here we offer the consumer a better deal than anywhere else.

Worse than the account creation process though is the fact some people here don't see value in what most people do, and for the most part don't even understand the business they're in. Or won't even respect people for the roles they play.

they would need to know on their first day it's a better deal to purchase and powerup tokens in order to tip people

Right, and good point. I signed up in mid 2017, bought a few hundred Hive and thought, what the hell is going on in this mad place.

I remember spending a shit ton of effort and hours making a few posts back then and got less than a penny. Confused, I looked around and saw people getting tipped hundreds of dollars for a post that read something like "Hmmm.. Which shirt today.. Green or Blue?"

Okay, that's more of a recognition that people suck up to whales in hopes for precious whale milk more than anything else, but it did lead me to begin understanding how things work around here.

It wasn't until a few months later that I realized the value in powering up, and that's when I started buying 1000s of tokens. Lo and behold, people started paying more attention to my blog at the same time. This is another thing that I think a lot of content creators aren't getting. People like to see that you are at least investing a little in the project yourself before they start supporting you.

Otherwise, it just feels (to some people) like you're here to leech off the system. In a perfect world, someone can just show up with all kids of great content and creativity and everyone will just shower you will up-votes. There are some love stories like that around, but not as many as I'd like to see.

I feel like this comment is turning more into stream of consciouness rather than a response. Let me just end by saying that we really need to do a better job at cleanly explaining to people what they are getting into and how to be successful at it from the very beginning. Number one, make signing up a snap, and of course - make it clear that powering up some tokens is going to go a long way toward helping you interact meaningfully with the greater community - and be taken seriously.

In a 'perfect world' as a content creator/entertainer here, I'd prefer to use my stake to reward consumers of my work even more. Giving those good comments an upvote is like offering someone a free coffee if they visit my shop. With far more consumers around, it wouldn't be up to the content creators to also be out curating. It's so difficult to spend time on a quality post, finish it all, publish, respond and talk to people, then go out and try to consume as well. I treat my blog like a business so of course I want to have skin in the game. Those types who simply post random shit and hope for rewards aren't really using this platform to its full potential and many fail, then blame the platform instead of themselves. You're another here who posts quality; something made for actual viewers. Combine that with a mind for business and it usually leads to some measure of success. And never kiss ass for support or use cheap gimmicks. I see so many people do that and it just backfires. At some point these folks need to depend on actual talent. I'm rambling.

Also a good point - the up-voting your visitor's comments thing.

I have a lot of trouble figuring out how to allocate my votes. In fact, one of the reasons that I really would like to massively increase my stake is so that I could give posts nice valuable votes, as well as up-vote commenters. Sadly, I kind of stopped up-voting comments because I was draining my power to like 30% all the time.

I felt like it was more important to find and support great posts. However, now you have me thinking. I think over the next few months I should be able to rack up over 100k Hive power more and at some point it will allow me to lower my post vote percentage somewhat and use the excess for comment voting.

One of these days I'll figure out a balance.

I think one of the most important things (which you also mention) is responding to comments of people who take the time to read your post. There have people on here who make fantastic posts (not going to mention names, we've all seen them) who make zero effort to engage with the community. I don't expect people to respond to EVERY single comment, especially if they get overwhelmed, but to NEVER respond ever to anyone just seems wrong to me.

If I see someone like that, I eventually stop going to their blog. If I want to not engage with the author at all, I can just do google searches for various subjects.

Yeah dude. If someone ignores me twice, they won't see me again. This community is too small to be acting stuck up. If there were thousands of comments under my posts, and people knew I'd reward the best ones, plus respond to at least a few, the comment section would be jammed. If you ignore it completely, all you get is silence or trolls.

Excellent answer. This kind of answers my comment.

I agree, I think it's time to change our vision and focus purely on leveraging custom_jsons for now.

If someone wants to keep the current model going, he can always create an SMT that does it, to incentivize curation.

If you approached what I had mentioned with something like an SMT, you end up turning a market of potential billions into millions of tiny markets of thousands and each individual market then struggles unnecessarily.

Similar to how a massive retail store that sells everything makes far more money than all those individual shops downtown on the fancy street.

An SMT would be ideal for big name band or something with a dedicated fan base that already purchases everything that band (or author, or anything) puts out on the market. This is not the place or conversation for me to explain the details of that though.

Have a look at tribe tokens. Each one struggles because they've not tapped into the consumer driven business model, yet each one provides something that is intended to attract consumers. It's like planting apple trees and allowing the apples to rot because you're not interested in selling them.

Every single content creator here can tell you it's not the rewards they're lacking, it's the market of consumers they don't have a chance to tap into. Bring those consumers and the creators will earn more, along with the investors who just want to sit on the sidelines earning percentages.

I'd use that savings account to offer investors a chance to hold and earn a percentage without contributing, while leaving the current Hive power business model intact, with options to tweak percentages down the road. There could come a time when in order to reward consumers, the content creator might have to take something like a 10 percent cut, but still do really well, because they have tens of thousands of consumers voting/tipping their contributions.

I get your argument, but you are missing something. It is possible to create an SMT that is an exact replica of the current Hive token. Inflation, distribution, upvoting, etc... It can even be improved by removing the inflation to witnesses and the SPS and direct it all towards content creators.

This SMT can then be used on ALL the communities. Why set up barriers? The only way this SMT won't be used within a certain community is if the community specifically doesn't want that (unlikely).

Therefore, you still have a massive market. Not small communities. Using SMTs only as belonging to a specific community is very narrow. They can be used for the whole network.

That way, the main Hive token will be designed for investors and RC credits, because the value proposition this chain brings is indeed RCs. At the same time, there will be a general-purpose SMT working across all communities with the exact properties of the current system, or even improved properties for content curation. Hell, you can even try to design your own currency to achieve the best system possible.

I don't see how anything will be lost that way. If you believe that your vision of Hive geared towards content creators will capture more value in the long term than you will see that in the price. The price of the SMT for curation will be higher than the price of the main token.

I personally see RCs as the main value capture, because as the number of accounts and transactions grow on the chain, even if it's for content creation, RCs will become scarce and large holders will have to delegate it to others who need it.

In any case, both systems can coexist using separate tokens. If you combine them in a single token (what we have now), you end up with endless conflicts and no one knows what to optimize for since opinions will naturally be divided.

Edit - Important to note, you do not need to chose between the main token and the SMT, at least in the beginning. Since the curation SMT would start with the same distribution as the current Hive token, all of us already have the exact same voting power. Once you earn rewards for content creation, yes, you would have to choose between keeping it in the SMT or selling it for the main Hive token.

But then who buys Hive, and why? If it's just for RC's then I think only those who need RC's would purchase it, and it would be the bare minimum. And once there's no need to buy more, how do yo continue to create demand? It would be that SMT creating that demand. So this is just adding unnecessary steps and barriers in my mind.

I don't fully disagree with you and know where you thought process is coming from. I totally get it.

But I just watched those Tribes try this very thing. I can't say I was too impressed, but not fully disappointed either.

Too many markets, too many options. Not enough consumers.

If RC is being handed out by means of delegation, that means no new money is coming in the door. Some might go to a few stakeholders, which they'll sell. Only need a small handful of big accounts to provide plenty of RC. So that's a tiny market. And I don't really see how having a landlord while utilizing products this chain has to offer would be appealing to your average consumer. That all sounds ridiculous to me. It makes no sense, especially when there's already a proven business model sitting directly under everyone's nose.

There's tremendous value in content. Arts and entertainment, information. These things generate billions annually. Everything required is already in place it just needs to be embraced. These profiteers have been squandering the potential for years. They don't know what business they're in.

Well, there are two answers to that.

First of all, if everyone who needs RCs is just going to purchase Hive, then the price skyrockets, everyone is happy. Of course, there must be enough accounts for that to be true.

On the other hand, if a business uses custom jsons, like Splinterlands, they might be making money in tons of different ways. For instance, they can sell card packs, potions, etc for fiat money. This is what is happening on Splinterlands, they are making money through outside money. Consumers use their fiat.

So, how does this benefit the Hive ecosystem? Well, the users of the Splinterlands Dapp are consuming RCs. They need Hive Power to play the game. So either they will buy Hive (and the price will go up, coins will be taken out of circulation) OR Splinterlands will buy Hive, power up and delegate to their new users OR Splinterlands will need to lease RCs from someone else to delegate them to new users.

All those scenarios are bullish, provided there is enough activity on Hive which consumes RCs.

So, this is the model:
1- Have great Dapps that are fun to use, which utilize the properties of the Hive blockchain in some way, hence consuming RCs.

2- As the user base grows for each Dapp, RCs will get more scarce.

3- As Dapps need more RCs then they have powered up, they will start leasing it from other holders.

4- Demand increases again, as even more users want to use the blockchain.

5- Bidding war happens for Hive. Only the most profitable Dapps will be able to afford to lease RCs at higher rates or to buy Hive off the market.

6- Investors end up leasing at a very high rate or sell at a very high price, the loop is closed.

This example used Splinterlands but I could use an SMT instead. Transferring an SMT requires RC, upvoting with an SMT requires RC. Creating an account in a community with an SMT requires RC. There will always be more demand as long as the activity on the chain is growing.

This brings the question, at what point does the bidding war on RCs start? It depends on how much Hive can scale. If Hive is extremely scalable, and can easily handle billions of people being active, then RCs will always be very cheap, and this model does not make sense.

However, Hive does not scale that well. We'll get to a point where we've reached the blockchain's maximum capacity and this is when only those that are willing to pay the most for RCs will be able to use the chain.

The most profitable Dapps will keep paying for the market rate to lease RCs, while the Dapps who can't afford the rates will be limited by the amount they own.

In some ways that just sounds like profiteering until the majority goes out of business.

A good balance will be found. It is bound to happen as Hive can't scale infinitely. What's wrong with profits? I'm investing to get a return. If you invest for the upvotes then you are using one of the services the chain can offer.

Didn't say there was anything wrong with profits. It's when those profiteering end up doing more harm than good we run into problems.

I love it, I'm with you and I'd like to read more ideas about this

I've been writing and talking about it for years. Attempting to show folks how fuse crypto with the entertainment industry using what we already have in place has been difficult to say the least. So much potential over the years has been squandered. Folks just want to keep moving the goal posts, wanting to turn the place into just another dime a dozen crypto project.

There's a savings account feature sitting idle. Use that for something investors would be interested in. Give them a higher interest rate for holding tokens there. It already has a three day waiting period in place. There's no need to take away from content creators and destroy the potential of a consumer driven business model just to cater to a tiny percentage of humanity who'd actually be interested investing while the whole world is falling apart and looking for something to entertain themselves with. Combine all these things and provide as many options as possible to appeal to as many people as possible. That's how you do this... LOL!

There are minds who can think. There are doers who can do. Dreamers who will dream. A thing called teamwork. And no damn boss to tell us what we can and can't do.

I never really understood the wallet savings feature and I still don't know how you say it takes advantage of it.
Our @rutablockchain project focuses on promoting and adopting users. We would love to include your ideas in our work.
This
week we will give a forum to 250 people who will know about beehive. We can do this monthly.

The wallet savings feature right now works as an added layer of security. It takes three days to remove the funds you place in the savings account. At this time I don't believe one receives any benefits for holding them there.

> Start throwing in all these complexities and percentages and all you'll get are a tiny handful of crypto investors.

This. One of the strengths of this system is ease of use. Not looking to jump through even more hoops and rent my credits and whatever else was being discussed to do. If it's not easily understood, the entry is going to exclude more than it does now.

Fakebook sells worthless game tokens all day long for cheats and specials. Artists use Patreon for compensation. Reddit offers useless gold to share from one user to another. Not sure why there hasn't been a stronger push to gain producers and their followers. Invest in yourself, then you can reward others from your claim from the reward pool without ever touching your initial investment. On top of that, you will share in the rewards for the appreciation, as well as watch your investment grow for sitting there waiting to be used.

I also think most aren't investing in this to gain some kind of rewards in some other side token. I saw that shit over on Steem with a weekly growing number of shit coins with no use being created on that Steem engine. I began powering down the minute Sun said Steem is going to be a Tron side shit token. If this becomes some kind of you have to rent your stake scheme involving dapps and such I will do the same here. Thinking most of the problems so far is instead of looking at businesses that would be enhanced using Steem and now Hive, so many startups looking to fund themselves off the system itself.

The birds in hand keep being overlooked.

It's frustrating watching folks want to buy a truck and convert the truck into a car, instead of just buying a car, if a car is what they want. That's all I'm seeing.

There's a proven business model sitting on the table that has existed for centuries. It's being ignored? So we can do something people have already done, and failed or struggled with? Just to enrich a few who already hold the tokens? Squandered potential. That's common in crypto. This industry wants to go mainstream but nobody ever listens or caters to the needs of the mainstream. It's like they still want to trick people and convert billions into 'investors' ...and that will never happen. Nobody wants to use a social network that has landlords, for instance. A conversation here shows me the plan is to put those who can't afford to be in business, out of business. This is a joke.

^^ This!! A smaller slice of a bigger pie is often better in my opinion.

Looking forward on brainstorming ideas on this one.

One of the important question is how to incentivize following and good content.

There should be incentive for good curations. Maybe some sort of ranking on curators and a reward pool for that. An algoritam for curation efficency, not just like now, but with more factors included like account reputation, voting time, no of accounts voted etc ... just throwing ideas out....

These topics are not as easy and straight forward.

Also agreed on the custom jsons. There should be bigger push in that direction.

P.S. Lets not just change something for the sake of change. The 50/50 seems to be working, but its only 6 months, lets give it more time. Also not to forget the bigger picture and that is Bitcoin and the overall crypto market.

If/when the bulls are back, all this talks and improvments will be irrelevant and in the background. Not meaning we should not work to improve what we can.

> Lets not just change something for the sake of change.

Especially the entire voting system in a single hard fork?!

Mister/Herr Wolf I agree with ou. I hope reducing power down/UnStaking time to 3 day or less

> the cards and everything else is being kept on-chain, via JSON objects, text in a specific format

hmmmm, is that really true ? what that means ? history of transfers is equal to cards being on chain ? I am not even sure if you can recreate card balances from chain, etc.

For sure custom_json is probably most under-valued thing we have here. It's great for connecting chain with external databases, allowing users to interact with it, "give orders" to scripts, lot's of possibilities for games and apps...

About staking, in your scenario, you made it separate from powering up. Do we need more buttons and options for users? If anything like that is possible it should be designed into already existing staking(power up) instead of creating separate staking for another set of rewards

Transition from pob-reward-system to other-reward-system, should be taken in steps, instead of hard core switch... Not even sure if we can remove it completely :)

Intuitively it makes sense,

If I've understood you correctly (I may not have, I've spent two days painting my house and I'm on the wine!).... you're suggesting we abandon the 65% of rewards going to authors/ curators, and that just gets added to the 15% 'inflation' pool.....

And then we reward authors with a percentage of our 'interest' for a certain time.

I kind of like it.

It would certainly solve that annoying 'are we rewarding the person or the post' thing we've currently got going on. I mean sorry @blocktrades, you do not write the best posts on Hive even though you're the highest earner, according to @dalz's stats.

But I get why he gets rewarded! The rewards aren't about the post!

And it feels like it would be less frenetic, slower, and getting rid of the 'curation sniping' that goes on.

On a first read, it works for me, I like the idea of moving towards a long-term passive-gains system.

Good work!

Finally, someone with real clout who is starting a conversation about why you would buy Hive (or Steem...)! Every time I have asked why, I was always told that it was for influence over the reward pool... Well, to make any difference there you would have to buy a huge amount... Which is ludicrously risky as an investment!

I can't really say much about this proposal, other than everything would be different... And I'm not sure that what we have at the moment really works.

But I'm glad that you've started the conversation at a level where people will listen!

> The goal was to have a system that is very clear, transparent & positivity driven

That is the mistake of the actual reward system. For me i do not understand enought about the function of the rewarding and your solution to solve the "problem" with self voting, "no" comment voting and so on. But i think to talk about it and get a better ones is the right way.

Please do not forget:

A idea is not good, if the stupid ones (for example me^^) did not get it.

Drive the Hive, i do go for witness next weeks and work with your view of point.

Salve
Alucian/Sascha

this might be a noob question, but the only reason i can see the value of hive still being this high, i can only explain with the rising demand on hive. Since we are though incentivized to destroy hbd to create hive, plus rewards are given in hive and interest rates on hive power, its hard for me to imagine that hive has a lower inflation than the dollar, hence eventually giving hive an ever decreasing relative value to the dollar, hence not incentivizing the average investor to keep it all in hive?

we are incentivized though to either dlease stake to vote bots or be vote bots and earn curration rewards, which seems to be a major reason i can explain a large demand on hive stake... if through some miraculous way you found how to distinguish and encourage brain driven votes over bot driven votes, then what will happen to dleasing and the value of hive its self? i also notice there are very few sinks of hive compared to hbd, where hive is incentivized to be destroyed...

I'm adding this note to the top of my comment; my remarks are highly critical, but I do appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

>One of the major problems Steem had, was vote-selling/self-voting, where it was economical more lucrative to do that, instead of voting honestly on other people's content.

That is always going to be a problem, but there should be some things kept in mind:
+ should creators be barred from using their own investment stake, especially those working in niche areas of interest, or those whose social skills prevent them them from building voting cliques? (note, I'm not criticizing cliques)
+ remember, holding HP is an investment; some people want to capitalize on investment, not particpate in community
+ finally good content is subjective

>there is still the problem of auto-voting/trail-voting

I use auto-voting to support creators who I find value in; I usually don't have the time to read and curate all the creators who provide value to the platform

>While the idea of incentivizing manual & honest curation via rewards was and is still a great idea; in practice, based on years of experience, I'm quite certain that it won't work

It will work for some people, there are several great curation guilds. They are fighting through a lot of chaff to get to good content. I will say this; for those people that want to make curation better on HIVE, they have to put in the time to curate (and organize curation) themselves. There isn't a system fix (although communities is a good way to go about this).

>Why should individuals buy HIVE and potentially even hodl it?

The more critical of the two questions. Development will follow audience.

So what are the reasons people would want to use HIVE?
+ investment
+ decentralization/freedom from censorship
+ community (or, communities of like-minded people)

I would argue that these are the three most important things to look at in answering the question. In fact, they make a pretty good self-supporting triangle.

But it does rely on staking HP.

[break - will be returned to]

Wolf, what about something like MakerDAO, but on Hive. Would that be possible? Like borrowing HBD with HIVE? People could pay the debt by making good content and stuff, sounds pretty cool in my opinion.

RC delegations, yes!

1 month waiting period to vote for witnesses and DHF, yes!!

Concerning your solution to upvote-abuse, I don't understand it fully. Your solution keeps the upvote (renamed to "redirecting a percentage of staking rewards") but eliminates the concept of the reward pool.

Instead of having a reward pool belonging to everyone, and dealing with "reward pool rape accusations", your system allows everyone to own his stake without affecting others.

While this seems fairer and might resolve disputes concerning the use of the reward pool, it's just as if you are getting everyone to constantly upvote themselves 10 times a day (under the current system), and if they want to upvote someone else instead, they have to actively donate.

This will drastically reduce the amount of "donations" people will make. Right now, I want to upvote posts when I see them. Under your proposed system, I'll just keep all the staking rewards for myself.

The reward pool incentivizes voting on other's posts. It is not working well, true, but what's the point of making an account on Hive if no one will give you staking rewards?

I am going to answer myself: Dapps like Splinterlands are the reason. Using custom_json, as you said. Also, social media can still exist, but the incentive will no longer be about earning crypto, but more about censorship resistance on the blockchain level.

I like this vision of the chain, but I am not sure that this is exactly what you meant. Hope you clarify.

Edit - having read your answers to other comments, I think I understand better what you mean. I support this vision of Hive. The current system can be replicated on an SMT if people really want it.

One of the most overlooked details of HIVE/Steem is that you can reward other people without giving your money away and even get something in return for doing that. This concept is so fucking brilliant!

I think that just giving out staking rewards is not what we should do. Most people here don't spend time on Facebook. Why would they spend time on HIVE if they can just stake and claim rewards once a month without ever looking at the entertaining content of fellow content creators? Do you want HIVE to be a passive investment vehicle? This does not fit together very well with the community we have established.

This is too complicated. It's hard enough getting people to understand that when you "like" someone's content they are rewarded 50% and you get 50% also, and it comes from a "rewards pool" not your own money, but how much "money" you have does determine how much each of you get each time you "like" content. And then there's posts, self-voting, delegation... I don't see how making this even more complicated helps.
In terms of incentivizing people to buy more Hive, as much as I don't like the knock-on effects, the most practical thing is to encourage the investment as a way of increasing the amount you can upvote your own posts and also what you can earn by delegating to those who want to upvote their own posts. Of course it's problematic, but it is genuinely the most likely thing to lead to most people being willing to make the investment in this coin when they could instead buy Tezos and stake it for passive returns.

I am hoping for a great future ahead.

I see the problem that in your system the most effective way to earn is just to stake and to go away. It doesn't matter if posts are written or not.

Currently, when self-voting of spam is balanced by down-votes, the rewards of authors and stakeholders will go down when nobody posts. so Stake-holder (curators) need to animate authors to write, so that they have sufficient posts to vote on.

I agree the system is complicated and it needs active downvoting of accounts that try to cheat proof of brain. Also the fact that I need to vote within the first 5 minutes for optimal curation rewards is not optimal.

There must be something in place to animate stake holder for reading and for rating content. Otherwise they will lose interest and go away, knowing they earn interests anyway.

I'm also seeing no need to store votes and posts data directly into the blockchain when there is no influence to the reward.

As a developer, I'm seeing also the problem that your idea needs a major code changes which needs to be applied in one hardfork.

Exactly. There is no reason to turn Hive into just another PoS shitcoin with no reward pool.

Contrary to what @therealwolf or some others may think, Hive (and Steem) have done spectacularly well from a monetary point of view. Pray tell, what other platform that has about 10,000 accounts transacting per day is worth 50 million dollars? For Hive (or Steem) to be in the top 20, we should have a market cap roughly an order of magnitude larger. Not going to happen unless our user base grows significantly.

How to grow our use base? Improved content discovery would be great. Content discovery is a front end issue. Let front ends deal with it. Any developer can fork the Steemit code base - or develop one from scratch - and tailor content discovery to any audience they wish.

Where I disagree with you is the need to store votes and posts on chain. That's absolutely crucial. Storing them centrally would completely undermine Hive's value proposition which is censorship resistance.

> Quote chapter V (roman 5).

Rumans used the term "null" rather than the symbol 0.

Their number system was for accounting. They used geography for mathematics.

I also feel dirty every time I autovote. Curation trails are a little better.

I agree, solution should be on HMTs so various systems can compete and if people think they deserve inflations, well fortunately a proposal system exists.

Curation should stay longer than authors rewards to keep demand for steem, but we should be able to downvote this more effectively since abuse exists on both sides.

Personally I think we should have a maker DAO system on Hive. IDK how but hive would be great with it. Maybe we could fork bitshares opt as they have something very close to it or an entire new system all together.

After reading your article and the comments, I have come to the (not well thought out) conclusion that there just needs to be more, interconnect ways to play the “hive game”. We need more gamification. I like to think out loud and then get feedback so let me have it.

Game 1: Content Creation (25% of reward pool)
Creators create content and get rewarded with upvotes. To encourage trending author turnover, trending is not based on payout, but other metrics such as lifetime payout, reputation, average recent post payout, etc that make it harder for established authors to keep reaching trending. For instance, if an author has a trail that gives them $50 no matter what they write, they should not get trending for a $51 post. Now if their post is worth $75 (1.5X their average post), that might be trend worthy. The most well known authors don’t need to be on trending anyway. We all see @blocktrades posts.

I also think that there should be post scores that are based on these metrics so content creators can “compete against each other” like a game. There could even be seasons, etc with seasonal rewards from the reward pool much like splinterlands.

Game 2: Content Curation (25% of reward pool)
Get rewarded for voting, but to discourage vote trails and automated voting, have lower rewards for voting on the same author over an extended period of time. We want to reward new good authors so this lower return would take place over say 6 months + so that you can vote on new authors to get them more exposure.

Eventually, you will need to find new authors to get rewarded and this will encourage people to seek them out, but this doesn’t have to happen every day, but at least several times a year. Because more people will be consumers than creators AND because all creators will also be curators, this is an equal size of the pie (25%).

To encourage more rapid curation turnover, maybe curators get to play the creator seasonal game as well. Curators get a seasonal bonus if their authors do well, but there are diminishing returns season to season so you can not just vote for the same three authors.

Game 3: Stake Based Reward (25% of reward pool)
Get rewarded for staking hive. We want investors and people to keep their hive locked up. This is for passive investors. Because content creators and curators also fall into this category, it is also worth 25% of the reward pool.

Game 4: Hive Fund (15% of reward pool)
Get rewarded for developing the blockchain.

Game 5: Hive Governance (10% of reward pool)
Get rewarded for being a witness.

The way I see it is content creators are for people who cannot buy their way into Hive. They are level 1 and have to earn everything they get, but the unique thing about Hive is we give them that opportunity. We want to give them every opportunity to get to level 2, which is content curator. Creators will also be for people who just flat out like to create content like @theycallmedan. We need to have creator turnover and hive influencers should not overshadow new authors. It would be like Kim Kardashian constantly trending. That would be counterproductive and unnecessary. That is the world be live in at the moment.

Level 2 is the sweet spot, content curator and hive staker. People can buy their way here or earn it with content creation. After they have a decent amount of hive though, these people should more focus on identifying new authors and getting them to level 2. These people can also create content, but it will naturally be harder for them. Their influence will come from finding good authors and voting on governance.

We need to game it up even more.

**Edit: I just brainstormed this post so don't hold me to these percentages, etc.

Brilliant!

May I copy and paste this with attribution to you?

I want it to get more exposure!

Go for it. Thanks!

I’m skeptical. The system of “tipping” your staking rewards that you describe is very much akin to our current voting system, only much more laborious and unintuitive. I would only be in favor if there was a simple option switch akin to what is seen in a project like the Brave browser where the tipping can be handled automatically. I vote just like I do currently and the blockchain mathematically divides my staking rewards proportionally among my voting activities.

I also think arguments stating that voting & curation don’t work at scale are flawed, as our scale amounts to 10,000~ users. A big post currently gets a few hundred votes. I’m sure curation would look very different with popular posts getting a few million upvotes.

With any call to ditch the “proof of brain” and rewards pool structure, I’m always left wondering what Hive’s unique ability and selling point is beyond that. To phrase it in the most despicable way possible given the current climate... the system you describe could probably be quickly implemented and do very well on Tron. 😬 Yeah, I used the T word.

In my mind, the rewards pool has always existed with the goal of spreading the token as broadly as possible to give it value. That organic outward growth is slow going, but it is happening. Making it so that pretty much the only way to get Hive is to buy Hive will mash the brakes on that. And that is what would happen in terms of content production at least. There’s no way someone is going to browse a social feed, read a random post they enjoy, “like” it, and then pop over to their settings tab and say... “That person seems interesting, I think I’ll direct a max percentage cap of 0.5% of my staking rewards to him/her; with a daily-cap of 4 HIVE, a total cap of 25 HIVE and a max duration of 2 weeks”... and then repeat that process 50-100 times a week. The current system just does all that “under the hood!” So any new content producer will be largely frozen out. Getting any traction & earnings will be infinitely worse for content producers.

I wouldn’t see myself continuing to participate in Hive under a pure staking system. It simply wouldn’t make sense to allocate attention and time here versus traditional social media and websites, at least until Hive had more activity and eyeballs than they do.

Do we want the Hive token to represent the value of the “attention economy” we build, or the value of the blockchain server costs? I think the former has more room to run than the latter, and relies heavily on a content driven rewards pool and the concept of mining via participation.

I think hive needs an easy to use and intuitive blockchain-based advertising model, that captures value inside the blockchain by let's say burning hive in order to display ads.

My reply to this is too long for a comment so I made a post :)

https://peakd.com/hive-136578/@midlet/reply-to-therealwolf-s-post-about-brainstorming-the-future-of-hive

staking rewards FTW imho.

If we remove the author rewards from the equation then "investors" will follow the path of least resistance and simply turn into passive users an content producers will just leave. This will hurt the distribution of stake.

Although not perfect "POB" is a good enough mechanism for coin distribution. We can argue about the percentage of the inflation that goes into the reward pool but I think that abandoning it would be a mistake. A side effect of having a reward pool with POB is that it creates an army of free advertisers and advocates for the blockchain.

As an investor I do not mind directing a good portion of the inflation for content production. In time a percentage of those content producers turn into stakeholders and it's essential for a DPOS system to have a wider distribution of stake.

First off, I read the whole post and the remarks that were made up to this point. I do not know that they are very important at this time. The last 4 steem forks, and likely more all have tried to fix the reward pool function.When are the suggestions going to come out to fix the WITNESS SELECTION process? Perhaps one of the reason the reward pool has not been able to be fixed is because it steps on to many toes.

I am one of the consumers that nonameslefttouse mentioned in his response. I came to steem for the purpose of consuming content. I post on occasion, but mostly vote and comment and consume. Drop/disallow/remove the self Vote option, for content and for remarks, make it not exist any more. (O-kay now everyone can tell me all about why that won't work, it won't work because of fear on the part about not being able to earn something to make an ROI). I have yet to read a single reason why the self vote is so important, that made any sense to a consumer like myself.

No manual vote and at least one manual comment once a quarter(4 times a year), no right to vote for witnesses. If an investor does not want to look after his/her investment at least on a quarterly basis, they have no right to decide who the witnesses are. Just my opinion.

Fix the witness selection system first then maybe the reward pool issue can be seen in a new light and be fixed by witnesses that were/have been chosen by the actual creators, consumers, and interested investors.

The only argument against removing self votes is that it's completely ineffective. If people are self voting for ROI they'll simply create a second account to vote on the first. I'm in full agreement that we need to tackle governance changes soon. It's especially needed in light of what's occurring presently on Steem, so Hive can point to changes that are more concrete than waiting periods & a temporary reshuffling of stake, and show that Hive is much more resistant to the attack vector that befell Steem.

> If people are self voting for ROI they'll simply create a second account to vote on the first.

Make them create the accounts, odds are pretty good they will screw up and lose a key or two. They will have to divide their sake up, with the new curation curve that would mean less over all ROI by having more accounts. That is just an excuse to do nothing about a known problem. It would mean less HP casting a vote, and make it easier for anti-spam gangs to down vote the secondary all the way to tercentenary accounts. It is much easier for a group to down vote 50,000HP than to down vote 1,000,000HP. So why make self voting easy if that is and has been a concern, do away with it, make them make as many accounts as they want/need to get the same ROI as one single vote. Force them to dilute their power.

Most of all we need to Fix the primary cause that got us here, and prevent it from happening again.

I haven't been letting my downvote power sit idle here on Hive, and I've found it much easier to help deal with haejin, a straightforward single account self voter, placing votes high on the curve; than crystalliu, a network of accounts shuffling stake, creating dozens of spam posts and voting at much lower curation curve ROI. Anecdotal evidence, sure. But in both cases vigilant community efforts and the use of downvoting are the only remedy. A code change would be only a minor impediment.

If anything, I would advocate for the removal of self upvotes to occur entirely on the User Interface level. I imagine with Hivemind it would be possible to simply not show a like button when condenser or the PeakD UI sees that the post is created by the logged in account. Any user who is going to set themselves up on an outside auto voting bot or some other solution is already savvy enough to get around a blockchain level restriction. Removing the option from front ends would at least set the social expectation for new users and general public that self voting is frowned on and not a community standard.

>They will have to divide their sake up, with the new curation curve that would mean less over all ROI by having more accounts.

That's a misunderstanding. The curve tax is calculated based on the total rewards on a piece of content. Small votes are not punished per se.

Okay thanks, they made it pretty confusing on how to figure things out.

> However, while vote-selling has vanished, there is still the problem of auto-voting/trail-voting

The auto-voting weakness of POB should be addressed. For this we should be creative. I simple way would be to implement a reputation system that indicates the level of selfvoting that an account has. Of course this is can be worked around with alternate accounts.

Voice is trying to get around this by using KYC but I am wondering if there are others ways of determining if an account is unique. If there is a way of doing this in a decentralized manner that protects the privacy and the data of the individuals we should try to look into it.

i will read comments later as it looks like there is a lot of info there, but i just want to write this as i finished reading. you want to solve auto-votes by an option to share your staking rewards with exact % daily. So there will be nicer trending page but they will most probably earn nothing.
I may be wrong, need to read everything.

At what point do you examine a proposed award system the fundamentally changes the way the current one operates, would require a MAJOR hardfork and a significant amount of testing, and decide perhaps developing my own blockchain from scratch would be the better choice? Hive's age can be measured in weeks. You don't see a thriving future, and you seem to be ready to call for a logistical nightmare of a redesign, and throw the baby out with the bath water. No thanks. Why don't we fix the stuff that was promised to protect the chain's governance first, before we stark mucking around with staking and making fundamental changes to the reward pool mechanics.

@therealwolf
Thank you for thinking outside the box!

Two things:

1> Isn't this basically turning my account into a Brave Browser and each post into a Participating Website?

"Because you want to support that individual anyway, you direct a max percentage cap of 0.5% of your staking rewards to him/her; with a daily-cap of 4 HIVE, a total cap of 25 HIVE and a max duration of 2 weeks. (whatever is smaller in the specific timeframe; if 4 HIVE equals 0.2%, then you still have 99.8% going to yourself/others).
The rest of your staking goes towards your own account and the other accounts you have set.
The staking to other accounts can be canceled at any time."

2> Why wouldn't Stake Reward Buying replace Vote Buying, and Stake Trails replace Voting Trails?

I really think your idea is interesting!

It seems that you are suggesting that we leave Post Rewards incentiveized by popularit, pride, and exposure (and the ad value of that), and replace Vote Power's profitability as an incentive to Power Up/Stake with just Staking and Direct Rewards as the incentive? Is that what you are saying?

Thank you for being you!

🕉️☀️♥️🙏

Who would benefit the most from this proposal ?

You want to make Hive a tipping platform from the point of view of content creators?

The current systems allows a stakeholder to control a piece of the reward pool, which means that a vote that directs rewards towards an account takes them from EVERYBODY.

Now you want author rewards to come from a private wallet (a staker's personal staking rewards). There would be no curation rewards. Curation is hard work. Under your proposal, staking rewards would be the new self-votes. How does this improve anything?

Billions of content creators are willing to create content without the kind of direct rewards as on Hive or Steem. Most even create for free. I understand the desire to tap into that. Perhaps you could attract niche creators who are likely to get censored on mainstream platforms.

He basically wants to de-evolve HIVE into Whaleshares.

How does it work on Whaleshares?

It doesn't.

I don't know the first thing about how the reward system is supposed to work on Whaleshares. That is not very helpful.

I wasn't trying to be helpful. I was trying to be funny. Sorry?

No need to be sorry. I just missed your joke because I don't know anything about the subject matter.

You don't need to change anything, just educate content consumers.

Back in the STEEM days, I wrote a post about how people should stop wasting their money supporting content creators on Patreon.

The logic and essence is as follows:

You buy x HIVE/ STEEM. You stake it. You "subscribe" to your favourite creators. Each time they generate content within your parameters, they get support.

Want to send them $x USD per day / month? You'll need to invest $x in HIVE/STEEM.

Oh, and all along, you're making rewards for supporting their content.

Whomever creates a website that is like Patreon that allows a user to "monetise" their content to an audence in this manner will be the best developer this platform ever had, provided that it:

• Allowed the "supporter" to directly purchase and power up the crypto
• Set the paramaters of people who they support
• Intelligently suggest other creators that generate similar content to whoever they're supporting.

That's my perspective.

Exactly. If you want to support content creators, stake hive. If you wanna give them more money than their upvote is worth, buy HBD and tip them with it.

@therealwolf

i think the easier way would be to sell banners under every post. So the banner will be integrated into the post if someone wants to advertise there. This could easily earn the author rewards. In addition, the advertiser could pick and offer the posts with the best quality.

I am not a programmer. But I know the system would work 100%. Since we see the same as a revenue model on Facebook, google and co.

And it wouldn't be long if the posts were good, that very large advertisers were buying advertising.

Technically, I think it should be easy to do.

Mark advertising space in the post, and a bid window for advertisers.

Advertisers can bid with HDB and Hive.

And we have one more usecase.

Each frontend would show the advertising as it is in the post.

The rewards can flow 100% to the author. That would be revolutionary and 100 times better than the competition.

Then you could exchange upvotes with likes and dislikes and let SMT do the rest. Or the inflation from hive to 0.

I do like the idea of lifting the burden of rewarding the social part from the base layer. It would get rid of a lot of issues and points of friction.

Communities are already working well for creating, following and moderating content. But when we look at Steem Engine tribes, we could see that most coins went on a steady downward trend. That was to expected but it calls into question as to what extend SMTs will be able to achieve the rewarding part. There are lessons learned with respect to inflation, initial distribution and even if every community needs their own token or if there could be groups of communities working with the same SMT.

An ideal solution to me would be that a casual user doesn't even come into contact with HIVE and only encounters the SMTs of their communities. Trading of RCs should be handled by app- and community owners and moderators.

I personally don't think the staking system should be changed yet. There are a lot of variables and the current Hive/Steem user base is too small a sample size to really understand how well a system works.

There's also the effect of education on best practice, general sentiment on the 'right' way to use certain features (e.i downvotes)

I personally think right now we should be marketing and fixing the issue of onboarding and education as to the use of blockchain tech. Making it easier for the average person to at least get onboard.

Creating an account is difficult with the cost and or wait time being a turn off for most. Key management can alienate a lot of people too. There's a lot of area we need to tackle all at once.

I personally prefer the current system as is, perhaps some tweaks are in order sometime in the future.

@therealwolf Top 20? How do we get there?.
the best solution, and the ability to use ""sbd and steem power steem who becomes hbd and hive power and hive"", we make hive an investment and hbd les récompense
we have to add hbd power and be a real stablecoin. to explain my point of view and make it easier to calculate suppose hive its value is 1 hive = 1 dollar and 1 hbd = 1 dollar .
I start with the publication awards :
it's the same thing 50% author 50% conservative
or can change it to 75% author
because the Conservative would have other way to earn more.
more explanation in investor.
the rewards will only be with stablecoin hbd.
investor hive :
the more you buy "hive" the more you earn "hbd power" which will be used only for the vote, example : you have 1000 hive power it pays you 2 hbd power every day ""the calculation will be on the value of hive"".
2 hbd power you can only use them to recompose the authors.
and when a curator votes 50% conservative in hbd "hbd liquid" who can use as he wants,
so we can encourage investors to stay in hive power, and encourage investors to invest in new business or application.
abstract :
hive power makes you win hbd power everyday.
hive power you can lend is win hive and hbd.
hbd power for voting only
hbd and hive for trade
the authors earn hbd who can sell it or invest it.

I like where you are heading with staking.
I am okay with the system in place, the problem is, it is not manual curation.
I feel like certain people will always earn more, thanks to autovotes, and friends automatically upvote friends. True curating will never be a success if one small group of people always get from the reward pool and they are the one controlling the situation. In the same token some are truly writing great posts. Kudos to them.
Plus human nature favors to upvote people you know.

I read your post with attention.
Some aspects of your ideas look not clear to me. It could be the terminology you use.
I like the staking part very well.
It will attract investors.
When you mention investors it shows #hive should be looking for poeple with big pocket looking to earn without posting or doing anything else just for profit.
This is a broad view to attract those people without them thinking they need to be part of governance to profit.

If I get your point right, the reward pool should be dedicated for staking and RC, and SPS and anything where everyone is equal on earning. That would put #hive way on top.
On the other hand each HMT can concentrate on what is good for them.
Just thinking about #Dcity where you build your city and earn #steem-engine and #hive-engine token and weekly earn a piece of their reward pool.

I have to say I appreciate you bring that up and it will attract more people to #hive knowing writing or posting are not the main focus to earn or profit.
Hive-on!

We need a referral system like onfocoin
Onfo, crypto you earn through network mining
[IMAGE: https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/chrisaiki/L2UtrAYZ-image.png]
https://my.onfocoin.com/home/code?code=chrisaiki
It is free to join and you earn 5 Onfo

> you direct a max percentage cap of 0.5% of your staking rewards to him/her

The likelihood of this happening at any decent rate is just about 0.

This is far from a good idea. Lets not turn HIVE into Whaleshares. That would be a terrible choice.

I agree, with Roman numeral V.

And with the debate content creator choose to create there own website since more money is made via Google AdSense alone what about affiliate link.

To be honest also, if you can only create a dApp to provide content creator a front end like WordPress where able to use custom domains like blogger and hive will be there data base but not replicate to other frontend then your content creator thing will work fine... Let's just say a website owner is required to hold at least 1000 Hive power and increasing depending on visitor and bandwidth usage to run his/ her website for life... Then this content creator thing will work fine.

Valid points - agree with most. Get rid of rewarding authors for content might be a solution or drastically change how content gets rewarded. The blockchain can run for free if people want to use for censorship free opinions. I see the chains better as a chain to run DApps people actually love to use. We need businesses to create sth on the chain instead of this reward pool stuff (hence I know many people do not like my opionion). We need to create value for companies and potential investors.

The only thing I am not clear on - we have a strong community - this community needs to be incentived to be active somehow.

I am a big fan of PoB. We take for granted being a top 100 coin without any manipulation. It's not easy, it means you have real value. PoB was broken on STEEM for years and the new EIP has hit closer to home than anything else. HMTs will revolutionize the way decentralized curation is done and make the community very robust.

Inflation on STEEM decreases every block, HMTs will eventually become more popular overall. STEEM's PoB is for distribution and onboarding. HMTs are for retainment. Without PoB you get cartels for witnesses. You have never seen a vote war in DPOS before because the other DPOS chains are already conquered. Take away PoB distribution and you take add a security risk.

I can go on and on about this, which I have. I am in favor of switching a few things, like a mega upvote/downvote that use more SP. I am a fan of removing the competitive curation as it isn't working good in practice. I have some ideas, a flat 3 day period where you earn the same no matter what you vote (unless the post is downvoted) and after 3 days you take a small penalty up until the post window is closed (7days)

I believe if you give a WORKING PoB model, similar to what we have now a bull run, you have a top 20 coin.

after what happened in the last couple of weeks it is fascinating for me that anyone think that social part of the chain is not important. it is mind boggling.

Agree with this. The social side of PoB creates an army of engaged micro stakeholders. If we have learnt anything from the last month surly that is it.

To keep it short, i suggest to read the Post of Lauch3d and then follow the link in his post. I think that could be a really smart way to solve problems and Witnesses should think about that. ✌

I think if we change anything,it should be a way to put hive in the hands of more people.

What's the problem with auto voting? Honestly your solution sounds like it makes the problem you'd seek to go away even worse. Because it's essentially the same as setting up an auto-vote but driven through the UI.

I think Hive's biggest problem is no checks and balances on Hive proposals. Does anyone track them? How do we know if Hive proposals are worth it?

Couldn't you just make a voting mechanism require a human not a bot? Like a sliding mechanism at a certain point like logging into binance?

I think you are speaking truthfully so I will as well.

This sounds incredibly complicated and dumb for three reasons.

1.) you day you want to draw in new users...new users will be new to blockchain tech. They’re not going to trust this and will be turned away.

2.) it sounds like you just want a bigger return on your money and it’s a fast way for you to widen the gal between the rich and the poor.

3.) those of us who have paid for our stake and aren’t as fortunate as you to be able to buy $13.40 worth of voting power bought into this system, not the one that you propose.

If I understand this correctly. The rewards distribution will be moved to interest on stake held?
If I want to reward another I would give a % of the interest the stake I hold brings in?
The rewards pool essentially becomes an interest payment scheme?

This is an interesting idea.