Let´s revisit the amount of Hive spent on the proposals. The money could serve better to fight inflation!
E.g. 20 HBD daily for keeping a blacklist whose benefit is doubtful to say the least.
Proposal payouts should be linked to milestones achieved!

A day?! That can't be right. Yeah that feller has made more than just what he gets on the HDF. Used to irritate the piss outta me when he would submit and "update" consisting on a few minimal lines of code for some fat Utopian votes but I never spoke up. Grifters gonna grift.

Def needs to be better accountability and diligence with HDF voting. It seems to be an easy mark so to speak and vector for quid pro quo voting. Wonder if there are some under the table vote selling deals 🤔

Wanted to clarify I see the utility in a colaborative blacklist but it's essentially a list of names behind a front end. Not terrible sophisticated or costly to be worth 20 HBD. Maybe a few a day but that seems exorbitant.

No need for justification man it's a joke that a simple blacklist is a funded proposal. Things like that should be coded and implemented into the system as default. That's why Hive is broken. People here think they're too awesome for coding mundane things.

The most laughable part is that they think big investors are going to agree and lock their money up for months into this basic project.

Yeah, agree. I'm not sure how implementing it into the system would work though. Wonder how many posts it would take to capture that amount of data ol Marky has in his list.

I mean it could become time intensive if one would have to query multiple post bodies but would probably cost a helluva lot less. Just would require the chain to be used which I thought would be something we would have wanted.

But using posts we would lose the ability to use other orgs blacklists so I do see that as a benefit to what Marky has done with this global version even if it is over funded. Not sure how that could be done on chain. Questions of management and centralization / decentralization come to mind.

Yeah MANAGEMENT.. a solid point.

I don't know how it could be done either but then that's what leads me to conclude that blockchain isn't anything special really. Well it is (as potential) but as it is currently there is so much that it CAN'T DO so then it's silly to celebrate is as
>"WOW Web3.0! ready to take over mainstream so go out and onboard everyone"

That's getting a little excited and is actually counterproductive because if it's not finished then maybe that's why so many that come and see don't end up staying long term. That illusive SMT would be my focus if I had ability to further the code.

Lol you taking about @themarkymark bros..
He feeds well on that Hive honey.

[IMAGE: https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/teknow/JcRHv4Ip-IMG_20201001_163714.jpg]

Don't hate the player homie.. hate the game.

He's pretty salty since I blocked him from crying on my shoulder in Discord.

lol it's a funny place Hive!
I think there should be more of this drama captured in a cartoon styled running series or a regular meme series.. something! because much of it is entertaining. Seems like nothing happens on the surface but actually much happens behind "closed doors" and between groups and charaters so the human element gets lost to the outside world really.

You know that might even have an upwards effect.
Social networks grow on drama.
Look at when the Sun saga took hold..
The crypto world was a buzz with this Steemit/Hive debacle.
Then... back to tumbleweeds.
Anyway that's my view.

[IMAGE: https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/themarkymark/N8qnFqhv-D1PBuRs.gif]

Came for the crypto. Stayed for for the drama.

I had the drama strip idea a while back. Forgot who I was commenting to but we really should run with this. Monetized drama. @whatsup would be proud. Lol

Yeah it would definitely attract attention and then once you have that, naturally people join the platform as they connect with the people here. You can't even find Hive channel on YouTube. To be seen as identities and in general to present the community as "people of Hive" is not utilised here. Random interviews with channels that are only in it to shill is not it.

I sometimes wonder if coders and significant players here even believe still. Or are they just milking it, hoping for a price rise from another crypto boom like 2017-18. All these initiatives are like a low budget MLM operation. Trying to get the most out of the last of the community still willing to promote.... for a measly upvote and for a phantom "poshtoken."

You are so full of shit. I posted very rarely in Utopian and it was 99% abuse related, not any specific lines of code. I usually got only small upvotes, especially compared to most of the Utopian community members.

You are just salty that I won't vote you and when you messaged me asked why I won't vote you and you threw a hissy fit I blocked you.

Bruh it was 3 or 4 lines and you did it a few times. Pretty sure others who were not technical didn't know how to expand the code so they hooked you up but not me.

~~Maybe that played into why you stopped voting my work.🤔~~

As for the rest, I wrote a response about "altruistic" voting patterns in general but you must have missed it.

Your ego got pricked when I asked you for feedback about why you stopped voting my work because you think voting is "giving away money" which is a fundamental divergence in our thought.

Then, we had another talk in which I accused you of using us and then you called me a "fucking crybaby bitch" in response which is a typical response from someone that doesn't have some measure of a guilty conscience. Maybe I was wrong for suggesting that there had been no good in your intentions but your response was kinda sus.

The last straw was my trying to do something good and contribute a STEM article to your platform but wanted to make sure that "a fucking crybaby bitch" would still be eligible for honest curation. That would be what I mean by support as what I created had value and I wanted to make sure the chip on your shoulder wouldn't cause it to be minimized.

Well that didn't go as planned, you revealed how you think of curation as essentially charity rather than you know evaluating value of network contributions and then you blocked me.

Also, your lack of patience and hypocrisy was part of the reason @memehub left and that was one of our main supporters. I don't blame him for it.

Edit: Corrected

You're the one that feels compelled to DV the info (presumably to hide it) so who is really full of shit here? Last I checked, DV wasn't the FU button but you seem to be using it as such.

> Bruh it was 3 or 4 lines and you did it a few times. Pretty sure others who were not technical didn't know how to expand the code so they hooked you up but not me.

None of the code was published, so you don't have a clue what it was and it was anti-abuse related not code and it was rare.

> Maybe that played into why you stopped voting my work.🤔

I told you exactly why I stopped voting your work.

https://i.imgur.com/rpwlxYz.png

Then you approached me later all upset I wasn't voting you. Then you accused me of "only looking how to profit from the good I was doing". That's when I told you to take a hike.

Then you approached me again saying you were extending an olive branch by asking for me to support your posts which is pretty weird way to extend an olive branch and that's when I blocked you. Only time you contacted me is when you wanted shit.

> Also, you also ran off @memehub as well for your lack of patience and that was one of our main supporters. I don't blame him for it.

LOL I had nothing to do with memehub. He left because he disagreed with Justine's proposal.

https://i.imgur.com/l2MJdz4.png

> Well that didn't go as planned, you revealed how you think of curation as essentially charity rather than you know evaluating value of network contributions and then you blocked me.

LOL, Man you are so full of shit.

> LOL I had nothing to do with memehub. He left because he disagreed with Justine's proposal.

Thanks for clarifying but I know it was more than that from DM so we'll leave it at that.

Oh yeah, I forgot I blacklisted him for running a spam bot.
Yup, all my fault he ran off Steem/Hive.

You never had the balls to say anything to my face when I was shitpost botting bernie or whichever douchebag .. I even had @enforcer48 reach out to u requesting you to discuss things with me, which u never did .. Then after I decided to stop so things didnt escalate on the botting stuff, reached out n told you I was, for the community members I respected that didnt wanna see that kinda thing happen, THATS when u added me to ur blacklist. Regardless of what my initial reason for powering down was, by blacklisting me WHILE I was deescalating the situation (which you were aware of when you did it), what message were you sending? One hella "just fuck you anyways"?

I didn't force you to spam. It's not my job to say anything to your face or hold your hand. You were spamming, I blacklisted you, it was simple.

Only time you contacted me was to ask me to vote your weekly memes. There is zero Discord history in my DM with you outside of that one line.

https://i.imgur.com/2efrujp.png

Is someone forcing you to be an arrogant asshole in this rn? You blacklisted me while I was deescalating botting only ONE user which used to be a huge pain in the ass for the platform in general for a long time, who is known for being a super arrogant asshole, similar to the way you are being in this situation (zero understanding and acting as tho you are the final moral authority that knows everything better than everyone else, like a totalitarian dictator with the power you possess on the platform) .. It is not as "simple" as u are trying to make it appear .. I didnt reach out on discord, I posted a comment to you on Hive, in reference to my reaching out to u.

Bruh it was 3 or 4 lines and you did it a few times. Pretty sure others who were not technical didn't know how to expand the code so they hooked you up but not me.

> None of the code was published, so you don't have a clue what it was and it was anti-abuse related not code and it was rare.

You didn't know that Mozilla unpacks extensions in a folder where the source is visible? All I had to do was compare the deltas.

But the thing was you were not adding any real functionality to the project in contrast to what I would do when submitting my project updates which were not trivial at all. Yours were milking for adding a URL with those 3-4 lines of code.

Don't you think a top witness milking an antiabuse system is just a little bit ironic, man?

Posting link to comment Marky downvoted for vis.

https://ecency.com/hive-181335/@theycallmedan/qrndnzew#@anthonyadavisii/re-stayoutoftherz-2020930t14958411z

Encourage all to not follow that example and DV ppl for personal disagreements. It's not cool ✌️

I downvoted you for spreading bullshit lies.

Which part was a lie specifically? I edited the comment btw

I believe the DAO is working just as intended. Anything that launches will have early adopters. Early adopters get better deals than those that don't take advantage early. This cycle can be said of any new thing. DAO launches, people launch proposals which have ZERO competition but are needed services, get paid. This SHOULD wake people up and say: "hey, I can do that job for a cheaper price!" then you submit a proposal, get votes and the one charging more gets unfunded.

I don't want to hear another word about an overfunded proposal unless there are 2-3 competing proposals. But if people don't want to step up and make the money themselves, the free-market will take the pay. I think we need MORE proposals, more advertising of the system, and point to what has been paid as a way to lure in more talent.

Valid point.
Seems the market is too small. Hive is too much a niche to have this kind of healthy competition.
Still it leaves a bad smell if people overfund their wealthy friends projects.

I would argue Hive has more dev talent than most crypto projects out there. We can make excuses or people can start pumping out proposals. Early bird gets the worm.

This is true but a surging price is the best advertisement there is, and people collecting large payouts from the DAO on a regular basis is part of the problem why HIVE continues to trend lower, effectively keeping those competitive proposals from showing up. What happened to building a stake and then working to increase the value of said stake? If people build something that adds value, the price will go up and they will be rewarded that way.

Amazing, actually, you stressed something here and that's the fact that you're one voice and the fact that maybe you have a large stake don't make want you wish for the chain like a decree. We're like s huge community and sometimes opinion can be scattered and we might not really agree on what we really want to do and this is the perks that comes with the centralisation.
Everybody actually wants what is good for the blockchain but then sometimes we are divided in our opinion and this causes disagreement and this sometimes might be like is stagnancy for the growth of hive.
that is one of the biggest strength of the community and sometimes it can also be it's weaknesseses indecisiveness and what to do and what not to do.
But then we can only hope for the best because there has been so many issues here and people reason bad blood on themselves and what is actually viable to maybe push prices or bring faster development. At the end we grow slowly irrespective of everything.

It's been such a long time

> We're like a huge community

Everyone needs to step up like LeoFinance

All about motivational. Your voice has power to motivate. I was just listening and attention was not broken with the words like
- Lets broken, not to repair
- Early leave is the best, not late
- Community is the power
- Now light in the technology and without internet it means...
- Incurred short term loss for long term gain
- Not time to say why its happening rather time to comment, mention, change, rectify
- Greatness is planned and blueprinted and many more.....

Looks like you listened to the whole video like me.

My favourite

> Incurred short term loss for long term gain

Ya @nathanmars
Powerful words and style is superb. I have not listenened to theycallmedan earlier. He is just awesome as a motivatoanal speaker

I like a....leaderless & decentralized, community based governance...
Hive got this, right?
What's up with A.I. & Hive?
I think it's pretty interesting what this Brian Roemmele says from Minute 20 on,
on the Keiser Report...
https://hive.blog/hive-196037/@rt-international/okqn18jmiy6

It seems to me that the people on Hive have figured out for the most part, that no ones life is more or less important than their own. There is debate and discussion, about what where and even on occasion how, to move forward. I have seen very little anger from one side to another. We are all learning that Hive has many sides, and many purposes. We are no longer balancing on the edge of a knife blade, we have learned to stand and with the first HF, we are becoming our own place, no longer tied to Steem.

2021 could be a good year.

2020 is the foundation for year 2021 and beyond.

People and projects who truly believe in our HIVE are the who is gonna take our HIVE to the next level

That is what HF 24 is all about, or so it seems to me, building that foundation. I know some want to see changes to the reward pool, and to the HDF, my own thoughts on that are to let them ride for at least a year. We saw what happened with steem and all it's changes or attempts to fix what a few thought was broken by working on changes to the reward pool.

I hope now that the foundation blocks for Hive are about to be laid the next step will be the governance of Hive. We don't need wasted committees like happened over on Steem, just an adjustment or two to the Witness selection, and retention system.

Then after Hive has been steady on it's feet for a year, then look at needed changes to the power down time and the reward pool. Investors, users and builders on Hive need some time for changes to solidify before changing what was changed in the last two forks, we need to stop all the tail chasing and just let some of the changes have time to settle in.

Of course that is only one users opinion, and I am pretty easy going, I'll go with the flow til it no longer suits me.

governance of Hive probably the most important thing

That I think a lot of people do agree on, just not how we go about fixing or describing the issue that we feel needs to be fixed about it. I do hope a lot of people start to think about it and try to come up with some novel solution that will make a meaningful change to it.

Coming with solutions and discussing ideas transparently on the chain are also important.

Imagine if Ned sold his stake someone who understand decentralisation than Justin!

We definitely need to think outside the box and build bridges with true believers of decentralisation and other projects/protocol

I really would like for things to be fixed and I know as someone heavily invested in this places success I would love to help towards that end and maybe it's possible but think some cleaning is in order.

No, I'm not talking content moderation either. Imo it's deeper than that. Is the HDF just poorly managed and researched or is it prone to corruption? I don't know but do know there has been problems w things not panning out.

I've pissed off enough people around here where maybe I just gotta step back and let nature take it's course. Perhaps Hive won't be the end in itself but maybe a means to one.

I did have an idea of how a moderation engine can be constructed on Hive that can service outside social media platforms. It sparked when I read one of my favorite subs /r/dankchristianmemes had grown so rapidly that the mods could not effectively manage so they shut it down. (w 200k+ subs!)

What if they had a mechanism for Hive users to service such moderation needs. I have had some form of this idea floating around for a while but like yourself. I have been on somewhat of a zero mode but mine was a bit longer duration.

It may take me longer to rev my engine up but hope to be at 100 soon. Bummer about your Twitter account man. I'm sure with the conservative provocateur stuff I be tweeting, my day will come as well.

Anyways, chew on the moderation thing. Possible outlet to bring money IN to the platform versus OUT. Maybe w the right kick start. It can break inertia.

[IMAGE: https://sdk.bitmoji.com/render/panel/2196307c-2ceb-46f8-8bf4-4c3e3f34f93e-e884fb04-2904-4868-92dd-baa595c864b6-v1.png?transparent=1&palette=1&height=150]

I have to think on this... I will get back to you on my thoughts.

Then again, they will be a couple of my personal opinions which are like my armpits:  From time to time, they both stink.

> We can not solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. —Albert Einstein

Overthinking is bad.

Just say what’s on your mind now and we’re here to discuss ideas to make our hive better

You know me. Opinionated, crass, and non-diplomatic. I would like to give constructive criticism and possible solutions. A sort of pro and cons on the problems we have on HIVE. At this point I believe they are minimal.

Bring it on when you’re ready

https://twitter.com/LAMBDF/status/1311401735815073793

I think some are scared of decentralisation. They are used to having some company they can complain or appeal to. It also scares those who want to control things. We are the pioneers.

I think we need to look at adding value to Hive for users in general and not just the big investors. It should appeal to all forms of content creator, but part of that is having an audience and it is just too small to get the big ones interested right now.

Fiddling with the algorithms is a matter of finding balance. There have to be incentives for smaller players to stay active or they will leave as making 10c per day is not going to cut it. They should be able to earn from curation and posting. If something can drive the price up then it gets easier to keep people engaged.

I don't have the answers, but I can be part of the discussions.

I am a fan of removing the curve to bring back micro votes. Micro votes were a neat feature for hive

Bring back the whale experiment!
A 500mv cap on influence affects ~70 accounts.
Of course they are the accounts that won't vote to cut their own take, and have a controlling stake on the platform.

Propose a replacement ROI mechanism for whales. I'm all ears.

What do you think of @edicted's savings account idea?

I like the idea of paying of interest on the savings account.
It ties up liquid hive for three days and hive held in it benefits the hp holders by upping the inflation while not getting the 15% for powering it up.
We could take the 10% going to the dao.
It has plenty of money in it for now.

As for roi for the whales, I propose they do something to increase the price.
The reward pool is to attract 'good' content to the chain, to reward 'good' authors.
Giving it to folks that farm with no effort is not increasing the value of the chain, iyam.
Especially, if they are dumping it to exchanges.
We might as well let haejin keep farming, he had the best roi of all the whales.
Didn't help the price much, but he had a successful roi scheme.

I'd further propose checking those sending hive to exchanges.
Vet them for need.
If they are reaping the pool just to increase their btc holdings, I say flag them.
If they are feeding themselves, that is more legitimate, imo.

Hemorrhaging hive to exchanges is lowering the price.
Allowing that to happen is improper use of the flag.

>"I like the idea of paying of interest on the savings account.
It ties up liquid hive for three days and hive held in it benefits the hp holders by upping the inflation while not getting the 15% for powering it up.
We could take the 10% going to the dao."

It replaces curation rewards as a mechanism to produce ROI for whales, allowing curation to become actual curation, and enabling whales to productively manage their stake without deranging society by upvoting based on financial incentives rather than social values.

No DAO funds are necessary because curation rewards are sufficient. At least that's how I understand it.

Edit: I want to add that taking action to repress token sales is going to drop the price effectively, which is not productive. Plus, it's just envy. We want folks to be able to transact with Hive with as much facility as possible, because that is what gives it value. If it's not fungible, it's worthless.

It's not a bad thing that folks sell Hive. It's a bad thing that there isn't more demand. Suppressing sales won't create demand.

>It replaces curation rewards

No.

Think about who is suggesting this idea, and what their past ideas did to us.

Games need rules.
The rules we have are the game proof of brain.
No effort rewards breaks proof of brain.
It's in the no effort part.

If you don't have time to manage your stake to increase the value of the chain, let that stake go idle.
Or let's just trash pob, now.
We can stop calling this an intellectual exercise and just be proof of stake like all the other unknown coins.

>It's not a bad thing that folks sell Hive.

Nope, it's not.
What is bad is farming hive just to increase btc holdings.
Any that are doing that need to stop, iyam.
This type of selling is killing the price.
We know who they are, it's a freaking public blockchain.
They just have more stake than us, currently.
Hence my suggestion to limit influence to 500mv to level the playing field for the rest of us trying to gain from the inflation, too.

>Edit: I want to add that taking action to repress token sales is going to drop the price

Only if others start selling.
We could drive to price to 5usd today, if everybody agreed not to sell for less.
Forgive me if I have a hard on for those few folks selling for pennies taking food out of my mouth, eh?
Not so much those selling for food, but those selling to increase their already swollen wallets can kma.

I don't even have any idea what you're referring to when you suggest @edicted has been a source of bad ideas in the past, but regardless of that straw man, it doesn't address this idea.

Curation rewards, I have always maintained, are toxic to society because they replace social values with financial incentive to cast votes, which has continuously deranged trending and utterly misrepresented society on Hive. Curation rewards utterly BTFO PoB, and replace it with profiteering.

Savings accounts would enable far more predictable ROI and gut financial manipulators, allowing sound investment decisions to prosper instead of sleazy circle jerks and bots - but only by replacing curation rewards as the source of ROI for substantial stakeholders.

No one's taking pennies out of your mouth but you. Like I said, it's just envy.

I deeply appreciate your competent math skills, but it seems we do disagree fundamentally on the relative import of values to society, particularly on corruption being terribly destructive to robust society, and a sound economy.

I also appreciate the forthright and substantive reply. I just don't agree with it.

Thanks!

Not @edicted, the others calling to majorly change the rules around the reward pool.

Making no effort rewards easier simply changes pob fundamentally.
We forked to avoid the death of pob.
Ending curation rewards because some folks can't control themselves enough to follow the rules is a bad idea, imo.
Better we use flags to change their behaviors.

>Curation rewards utterly BTFO PoB, and replace it with profiteering.

Not because of the curation rewards, but because of the greed of a few.
Better we change them, than the rules, iyam.

>Savings accounts would enable far more predictable ROI and gut financial manipulators, allowing sound investment decisions to prosper instead of sleazy circle jerks and bots - but only by replacing curation rewards as the source of ROI for substantial stakeholders.

So, we should just go back to linear rewards and send out the inflation according to who has how much?

I think you are missing the opportunity to change bad actors, instead you suggest capitulating to them.

>Savings accounts would enable far more predictable ROI and gut financial manipulators, allowing sound investment decisions to prosper instead of sleazy circle jerks and bots - but only by replacing curation rewards as the source of ROI for substantial stakeholders.

I don't disagree with that, just how to get there.

Curation rewards are not the problem, greedy f**ks are the problem.

Let's flag them until they leave, or get with the pob paradigm.

I've been exposed to a lot of relationships, and many of those were undertaken with one or both parties thinking that if only some of the behaviours of the other were changed things would be perfect. None of those relationships worked out.

Human nature is what it is. Fiscal responsibility requires maximizing returns on capital, and failing to win that contest results in loss of market share. Financial incentives are iron clad, not negotiable, and competent substantial stakeholders - which is who we want investing in Hive - know the drill.

Curation rewards unavoidably degrade curation. The more competent the management of substantial Hive stake, the more curation is degraded because the more attention is paid to financial manipulation. You may consider sound prudential management greedy, but it's a fact of stake, and isn't going to become rainbows and unicorn farts, nor is it going to change through angry mobs of flaggers.

What that will change is whether investors can produce ROI on Hive, and that's not the choice we want them to make.

As long as ROI is produced on Hive primarily through curation rewards, curation will be deranged because competent investors will choose to achieve ROI. Only by separating that ROI mechanism from curation will curation become based on the social values of upvoters.

Substantial investments are rewarded, and that's the nature of markets for capital. There's no use in decrying it as 'the rich get richer'. Animals with bigger lungs breathe in more oxygen. It's just physics. Opposing replacing curation rewards with savings accounts for that reason is simply unreasonable, unrealistic, and impractical. You're basically admitting that nothing will ever end the financial manipulation of society curation rewards cause, and that's ultimately a prediction of societal collapse, because derangement of free speech for pay is not sustainable forever.

The speech of Hive content creators is far more valuable than Hive tokens. Myriad platforms without tokens have long existed and will long exist because society values the resources of content they provide regardless of tokenization. Societies create economies, not vice versa. That being said, creating financial incentives to derange societies isn't uncommon in history, and the eventual consequences of such derangement is obvious in retrospect, as well as in Hive's example. Hive needs to end the derangement of our content by financial manipulation or suffer the inevitable consequences, which will eventually include the end of Hive.

Savings accounts don't automatically inure to stake. Investors have to use them to gain the inflation. That's an incentive well aligned with the needs of investors and the needs of Hive society. So, only that stake invested in those accounts will benefit from that inflation, and that will not only be based on the size of stake but on the prudence of investors. Given benefits to Hive from those savings, rather than the degradation of curation, replacing curation rewards with such a mechanism for creating ROI is a win/win for all concerned IMHO.

Edit: I'm not capitulating to greedy bastards. I'm convinced that aligning the incentives of Hive and investors will benefit both, rather than creating incentive for one to derange the other.

I'm still standing on 500mv influence limit and 10% of inflation going to liquid hive in the savings accounts.

I like curation under these circumstances.
I think many people will leave when no effort rewards are given out.

So. do author rewards go away, too?
Or are we just giving half away to non-participating whales?

I see curation rewards as no effort, myself.

Author rewards are the core feature of Hive, what separates it from Fakebook or any other social media platform that centralizes the income from content provided by users. Distributing that income to the content creators is the fundamental advance over legacy platforms. Curation rewards are a centralizing mechanism, and are not at all similar in effect to author rewards.

Social media platforms that enable voting all feature upvotes on content, but only Hive features financial rewards for upvoting posts, and we have seen how that has deranged upvoting on Hive by replacing the social values that drive upvotes on other platforms with financial incentives, turning trending into a shitshow.

Whales that seek to post and comment, like @theycallmedan, gain author rewards just fine. Clearly not nominal ROI, but he participates in our society by doing so anyway. It isn't financial incentive that drives him to post but other values he finds even more significant, such as freedom of speech, and economic sovereignty distributed in a healthy society.

His investment in Hive is significant, but I don't think he curates for ROI either, depending on 3Speak instead. Clearly he values content enough to upvote it without regard to financial rewards, holding those other values of more import to him. Other investors aren't involved in 3Speak, and need returns on their investments in Hive to justify them, which savings accounts could easily provide.

With ROI being managed through savings, the varying non-financial values they hold dear would still be able to be promoted by curation of content, continuing author rewards as a source of Hive distribution based on societal values.

@edicted has posted regarding how the savings accounts could benefit Hive as well, but I do not reckon myself competent to explain those details off the cuff. You should inquire of him, or check his back catalog for that information.

Yes, I have seen edicted's posts on the subject.
I'm all for interest on savings accounts.

I also like the game as it's played now.
I would like to see the 50/50 split tinkered with, but it will do for now.

I'm still back to needing rules to have a game.
If we do away with the game, the reasons to play are diminished.

I'm not against whales buying in, just against hive being used to farm for btc.

How many accounts do you see buying more than 40k usd at a whack?
Why should somebody invest that much when they will only see the top 60 accounts profiting from it because the return on 40k usd is watered down by folks that mined hive for free, and benefited from the early 160+% inflation?

It is my opinion that until the folks with more than 500mv stop taking the lion's share of the inflation nobody will buy in.
I have 4 years of data showing this to be case.
1.5 million accounts, less than 20k active.
Most of those sock bots of the top few accounts.

Hive was supposed to rise above the dog eat dog crapitalism.
Instead, it is just more of the same.
New boss, same as the old boss.

>"Hive was supposed to rise above the dog eat dog crapitalism."

>"I also like the game as it's played now."

If you fail to see the contradiction in these statements, there's little point in our discussion. Eliminating curation rewards and their degrading impact on content creation while replacing ROI creation with incorruptible savings accounts at least prevents the perversion of the society by financial manipulation - and enables rational investors to invest in Hive without having to resort to sleazy tricks to manage their funds.

Author rewards and curation rewards are utterly distinct in their implementation and effects on Hive, which is why I have sought to discuss that difference.

I confess I am mystified as to your failure to address that difference, acknowledge the harmful impact of financial manipulation of upvotes, or grasp the benefits of a forthright and predictable investment mechanism for rational investors to Hive, both the token and the society.

Anyway, I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss the matter.

>If you fail to see the contradiction in these statements, there's little point in our discussion.

There is no contradiction.
I just wish there was more stake flagging the abuse(no effort rewards).
Not currently prevailing in this struggle doesn't invalidate it.

I will not be capitulating to the abusers as you suggest.
Institutionalizing the abuse does not legitimize it.
As I said when delegation was put forth as a thing.
It only cements those on top in taking out the most.

No effort rewards invalidate proof of brain.

> replacing ROI creation with incorruptible savings accounts

Yes, let's do it.
Then we can flag fewer abusers because they will put their stake in savings rather than suffer our flags.
I'd suspect.

If we give a no effort out to the whales that don't want to put in the effort, and they continue to abuse curation, would you join our flagging initiatives then?

Flagging was intentionally designed as a check on those that break proof of brain.
Have you flagged some abuse today?
Have you gotten involved with the initiatives to be a check on them abusing their ganged up powers?
If not, you have abandoned your duty as set forth in the white paper by the guy that put all this into motion.
Shame on you for capitulating to the abuse.

>Author rewards and curation rewards are utterly distinct in their implementation and effects on Hive, which is why I have sought to discuss that difference.

They seem intertwined to me.
Do we still vote on content and get author rewards in your utopia?

If so, what do you propose to do about those that only vote their sockpuppets?

Am I to assume that flags go away, too?

You are proposing a fundamental change to this game that has been suggested in the past by the folks that gave us bidbots, linear rewards, and a two year kneecappening that we are just now recovering from.
I'm shocked to hear you take their side.

> or grasp the benefits of a forthright and predictable investment mechanism for rational investors to Hive, both the token and the society.

So, you want us to abandon pob and become just another shit dpos coin?
Give to those that have the most and f**k the newbs?

I honestly hope you can dig yourself out this hole I perceive you to be in.

You seem to characterize ROI as abuse. As long as you cannot abide ROI, you will seek to discourage investors from investing in Hive. No mechanism, no matter how straightforward and beneficial to Hive, that provides ROI will meet your approval.

I have explained repeatedly that author rewards are fundamental to the purpose of Hive, and here note that is the only mechanism that provides PoB. Curation rewards are inherently degrading to PoB, because the various metrics through which they are maximized necessarily focus the purpose of the voting on financial return, rather than the value inherent in the content being voted on. Proof of manipulation isn't PoB.

Hive having forthright means of creating ROI is equated by you to being 'just another shit dpos coin', and enabling those funds to benefit Hive dismissed. Unless you reconsider these issues and change your mind, we've nothing to discuss further, regardless of your insinuation that I am advocating for profiteering.

You complain about token sellers, but fail to admit that of the two of us, only you have sold them. I never have. Check yourself a little bit, eh?

I didn't undertake this discussion to rile you. I expected you to find ROI a necessary feature of Hive that attracted investment, and to grasp how curation rewards degraded curation, and since you don't you got riled. Surprised and disappointed, I will leave it there until and unless you reconsider.

>You seem to characterize ROI as abuse.
No mechanism, no matter how straightforward and beneficial to Hive, that provides ROI will meet your approval.

I characterize roi maximization at all costs abuse.
I'm fine with the current setup, wishing only to go to 60/40 author/curator rewards.
Well, that and a more level playing field. (500mv)

>I have explained repeatedly that author rewards are fundamental to the purpose of Hive,

Great, we agree.

Why would I vote anything but my own sockpuppets?

>because the various metrics through which they are maximized necessarily focus the purpose of the voting on financial return,

Yes, labeled 'abuse'.
Flags are what is prescribed in the white paper for exactly this reason.

>Proof of manipulation isn't PoB.

I'm pretty sure we agree on this, just you suggest paying off the abusers, and I propose flagging them.

>Hive having forthright means of creating ROI is equated by you to being 'just another shit dpos coin',

>>Moreover, Peercoin’s PoS consensus protocol does not require that BPs solve computationally difficult problems (which miners have to do on PoW chains). Instead, the cryptocurrency’s protocol has been implemented so that a BP’s “chances of being selected as the next [transaction processor] rely specifically on the number of coins held and time in the form of coin age and some amount of luck.”
source
>https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/peercoin

467 Dpos shitcoin.

Shitcoin=coin few people want.
This one even makes you run some kind of witness node.

>>https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/manna
>#5899 shitcoin, zero effort once you got a wallet.

Do I need to go on, or can we put no effort rewards off the options list?

>You complain about token sellers, but fail to admit that of the two of us, only you have sold them. I never have. Check yourself a little bit, eh?

Yes, I sold when I ran out of money in mexico and needed to come back.
All hail, Dan!

If you look closely you will also see the purchases I've made since then put me at about even with what I sold.

>I didn't undertake this discussion to rile you.

I'm not riled, just passionate.
Steem was sold to me as paradigm changing technology, I'd really like to see it do that.

However, if all we are gonna do is play the new game with the same rules, we have already failed.
I would like to see those with the most influence allow others a chance at having some, too.
I think that restraint will pay off quicker than waiting for a new crop of newbs that don't know the difference.

Dan worked this out, mostly, before he allowed the alpha to go public.
These arguments were hashed out by better mathematicians than me, and likely you.

Rarely is genius improved upon by taking an ax to it.

Better, imo, to change the negative behaviors of the few than to try to appease them.
You see they won't be happy until the 50/50 is 25/75 for stakeholders.
Then, once their money is out, they don't care about changing the paradigm because they got rich by playing this one and nobody is making them stop.

Dan left over some of these issues.
Ned won the round.
See what he did with his newfound power?

On any given Tuesday the folks putting their effort and money into hive can quit.
There would be no saving the platform if a certain few quit.

I want to spread the influence enough that all that can never happen again.
We achieve that when the network effects start kicking in.
That will require that we overcome the reputation bequeathed to us by those currently, and previously, in power.

I lost the original comment, maybe this one is better.

>"...you suggest paying off the abusers..."

No! I suggest creating incentive for investment, not abuse. Curating for rewards, rather than because content is valuable, is what I characterize as profiteering and that is the mechanism presently used to incentivize investment because that is the mechanism that produces ROI (without circle jerks, self voting, or bidbots, all of which are even worse abuse).

Creating a mechanism for producing liquid funds for developers through lending HBD, separate from the Proposal system, and requiring no public voting or grant funds from the HPS, is a massive benefit to Hive. Savings accounts also provide passive income from stake (lent out at interest as outlined above) to investors. Hell, if we do a better job at managing risk than the foul legacy banks, we could probably reduce inflation!

That IS NOT paying off anyone. It's not encouraging abuse, but encouraging development and entrepreneurship, while attracting investors to purchase Hive with fiat for the great return @edicted has proposed for savings accounts.

Curation is horribly broken because it is gamified for financial profiteering. You've seen trending. Ending curation rewards ends that abuse. All rewards should be author rewards. Witnesses need financial encomiums to cover their costs, and the HPS needs funding (or replacing with lending, but I'm not proposing that presently), and interest bearing savings accounts need funding, but because they replace curation as a source of ROI for investors and substantial stake, curation rewards gotta go.

Note that if we don't provide that stake a means of ROI, it will be invested elsewhere.

>"The incentive structure is geared toward autovoting. It's no wonder that Hive and LEO face major issues with too many autovoters and too little manual curators: you're incentivized to autovote because it's not only efficient for your time, it's also efficient because you actually earn more money as an autovoter.

>"Where does that "more money" come from? It comes from the manual curators who are actively adding value to the platform by spending their most valuable resource: time.

>"We're not here to talk down on people who autovote. It's clear that doing so is in your best personal interest but it is clearly not in the best interest of the platform. Nobody can blame anyone for doing what is in their best personal interest.

>"I've spent a lot of time talking with people and thinking about different curation setups. The primary question is:

>"How can we create a higher incentive for manual curation than autovoting?

>"In my mind, manual curation should be highly incentvized."

https://peakd.com/hive-167922/@leofinance/leveling-the-playing-field-leo-is-switching-to-a-linear-curation-curve

Without investors, Hive will lose it's financial value, which I'm sure you'll agree is bad and we should avoid that. Curation rewards derange content. Savings accounts do not derange content, and do attract investment without attracting abusers.

The only reason a lot of folks don't pander to whales, post echo chamber Hive boosting tripe, and etc., is because they're ignoring financial rewards and speaking from the heart. That's where the rewards should be going, and them willing to undertake abuse need to no longer have financial incentive to abuse Hive. Providing savings accounts provides financial incentive for being beneficial to authors that write from the heart, developers and entrepreneurs, and Hive in general.

That's not rewarding abusers.

It's recruiting them to team Hive.

>No! I suggest creating incentive for investment, not abuse.

Ok, there seems to be disconnect.
No effort rewards is abuse, iyam.
You are proposing that investors be allowed to have no effort rewards.
They make money for having money while the rest of us have to hustle.

I oppose that.

>Curation is horribly broken because it is gamified for financial profiteering.

Curation is broken by the greed of those that have the most.
If they would do negative curation of the farmers that reap the pool that would help.
Instead they strip as much as they can and call that good.

If the whales lived up to their responsibilities set forth in the white paper curation would not be broken as you describe.
Instead, some of them are the worst abusers.

>Note that if we don't provide that stake a means of ROI, it will be invested elsewhere.

If that stake persists in abusing the reward system, good riddance.

The only thing wrong with the current rule set is the people that are supposed to make it work are the very ones breaking it.
Whales need to flag some abuse*, and once the abusers can't get rewards because the community won't vote them any, then the problem you highlight won't exist.

*content neutral curation for maximizing returns

>"How can we create a higher incentive for manual curation than autovoting?

Flag the s**t out of abusive accounts?
It is set forth in the white paper for this very scenario.

I autovote with a low hp account.
I then read those posts and curate with this account.
Absent autovoting my content discovery is near zero.
No way I keep up with the list of authors I currently autovote.
Hell, I'd be doing good just to remember half their names, let alone spell some of them right.

Autovoting is not the problem, autovoting to maximize roi is the problem.
Flags solve that.
No need to take a hatchet to the rule set.

It just requires that stake holders grow a pair and fulfill their duties as set forth in the white paper.
Anything else is roi maximization in sheep's clothing.

Refusing to flag abuse has led us here.
Now you want to alter the very essence of pob to enable more?
Not for me, thanks.

> through lending HBD,

Can you expand on that, I seem to be missing some data on it.

>"If that stake persists in abusing the reward system, good riddance."

I am not advocating potentiating abuse - unless you consider all investing abuse. There is a rentier class, and they make bank from charging rent on their property. I bet you pay rent. Even if you don't, lot's of people do, for good reason.

Now, rent can be abusive, but it is not always abusive. It isn't just black and white, good or evil, but definitely scales from pole to pole. I am unable to ascribe to savings accounts any of the evils that can come of renting. Can you?

>"The only thing wrong with the current rule set is the people that are supposed to make it work are the very ones breaking it."

A few comments ago I noted that a lot of failed relationships start with one or both parties seeking to change the other.

People are what they are. Rules that encourage folks to act in ways we do not want them to act are going to produce actions we don't want. The current rule set does that. It's hopelessly broken in the face of the human condition, and curation will always be corrupted by financial rewards for curating.

Curation is undertaken on every social media site that allows voting, and only but few of them are tokenized at all. Curation does not require emuneration. It is the very financial incentive to curate content that deranges curation.

That's what's wrong with the current rule set.

Punishing people for doing what the current rules encourage only makes things worse.

Society is generally good folks encouraging their peers to prosper, at it's best. Curation rewards and mass flagging aren't going to bring out the best in society. In fact, the masses taking on the roles of Executioners is about the worst social expression I can imagine. I am reminded of the Killing Fields and Pol Pot.

There is a flavor of redistribution in your rhetoric that simply isn't realistic. Rational people that have acquired assets aren't just going to give them away without gaining something after doing the work it took to get them.

That gain doesn't have to be financial though. Tell me what kinds of investment activity are acceptable to you. I am not able to think of any that you definitely support from our discussion so far.

> I bet you pay rent.
Even if you don't, lot's of people do, for good reason.

I don't understand how you don't see the connection to no effort abuse.

Rent seeking is one of the highest, if not the highest, egregious assaults on the poor that there is.

Keeping people poor by allowing rich people to farm the poor through rent is one of crapitalism highest crimes, imo.
It is the main channel that expands the wealth disparity.

Having to bend over to have a place to sleep at night only serves to make the havenots slaves of those that have more than they need.

> I am unable to ascribe to savings accounts any of the evils that can come of renting. Can you?

Allow me to state again, the reward pool is to reward 'good' content for bringing value to the chain.
No effort rewards are the antithesis of that.

However, I agree interest on savings accounts is a good idea, I just don't want to take it from people playing the game.
The dao has enough money in it, for now, let's use that 10%, eh?

>People are what they are.

Again, yes.
Your solution is to give them ubi, and I say flag them until they leave, or change their behavior.
It's pretty clear hive is not for just anybody, let's don't encourage behaviors that are detrimental to the ecosystem.

>That's what's wrong with the current rule set.

No.
What is wrong with the current rule set is folks are too pussified to flag abuse.
Grow a pair and flag some abuse. (Not you, per se.)

> I am reminded of the Killing Fields and Pol Pot.

That is one serious level of hyperbole, good job!

Hive is a game.
Games have rules.
Without rules there is no game.
If we are gonna hand out no effort rewards we are no different than those two s**tcoins I used in the other comment.

We are mining hive, the more energy put into that, the better, imo.
Zero energy equals zero value.

If we hadn't flagged the farmers off the pool, do you think anybody would still play this game?

Would you still be playing if the bidbots hadn't lost their ubi?

What happened to bidbots?
We flagged them until they changed their behaviors.

>There is a flavor of redistribution in your rhetoric that simply isn't realistic.

I can understand why you might think that, coming from a crapitalistic purview.

Are we here to change the paradigm, or bring the old rules to this new game?

>Rational people that have acquired assets aren't just going to give them away without gaining something after doing the work it took to get them.

The 50/50 split solved this issue, didn't it?

>Tell me what kinds of investment activity are acceptable to you.
I am not able to think of any that you definitely support from our discussion so far.

Buying stake and curating competently is just fine by me, it is you that wants it to go away.

Buying stake and speculating on the price rising is acceptable, too.

Using an abundance of btc, fiat, or ninjamined stake to overpower the rest of the community in order to farm rewards to one's self, and/or sycophants, will not be on that list.

I noticed an absence of answers to my questions, can you prioritize that in a reply?

>"...the reward pool is to reward 'good' content for bringing value to the chain."

No. The reward pool is simply inflation. It is used to fund necessary services, including content creation via author rewards. It is not just author rewards. Amongst the outlays are witnesses, the 'free' flags, and curation rewards, as well as the HPS.

You prefer to consider only those aspects of my speech that aligns, either negatively or positively, with those facts you consider of import. Because of this you have not grasped my point about rent: it's not just abuse.

In the last three days I have put in ~32 hours siding a building in my community. I would not be able to repair and improve this building without rent. The folks living in the building pay rent to the owner, for whom I work. That's why he is willing to fund my employment, because my work will enable him to collect rent for his building.

That is not some evil force. That is investing. He is a rentier, and today he bought me lunch, rather than steal my firstborn.

Another rent that makes possible my slavish efforts to improve my community is the equipment without which the job could not be done. Both I and the building owner have many tools we use, but some equipment necessary is so expensive neither of us own it outright, but must rent it.

The fact than someone invested the money to buy the equipment in order to profit from our lack of it is a good thing. Rent, and rentiers, are not an evil blight on humanity, but the means by which civilization is built.

>"...I agree interest on savings accounts is a good idea, I just don't want to take it from people playing the game.
The dao has enough money in it, for now, let's use that 10%, eh?"

Holy unsound principles Batman! 'For now...' How about we undertake sound principles first so that all our subsequent endeavors have a robust and superable foundation we can count on without juggling not only our financial basis, but the very principles we espouse?

I have but mentioned the HPS in passing, but reckon @edicted is a far better person to discuss how it can be invested in building the Hive community. He's been tagged here multiple times, and can chime in if he thinks he should. He hasn't, so I'll leave it at that.

Sort what rent is, what's good about it and what's bad, and then we can devise policies that do not promote bad things, like content agnostic curation for financial gain, and do promote good things, like Hive distribution, creation of socially valuable content, and Hive development and promotion to IRL.

The work can't be done without it.

>"...give them ubi..."

Huh. I hadn't taken you for a would be slaveowner, but UBI is probably the best means of gaining control of individuals by making them dependent on you for every necessity in their lives.

You acknowledge that rent can become a terrible burden, abused to strip the poor of assets by shunting those assets into the wallets of fat cats, but advocate making the poor utterly dependent on those fat cats for their income?

Yeah, no. UBI is the devil. I'm literally eligible for Social Security, but I'm spending ~10 hours a day in hard physical labor to earn my way instead of taking free money, because I invest in my freedom to choose how to deploy the proceeds of my labor. UBI will be a noose around the neck of every content creator, or do you not grasp cancel culture and the coming mandatory vaccines? No vaccine? No UBI! Words that aren't pandering to fat cats? No upvotes for you!

Not gonna be an issue for me. Don't make it an issue for content creators on Hive.

Earn every upvote, and if you reckon you're being faintly supported by fat cats, remember that they have an obligation to preserve their equity for their heirs, to build our community, and develop new means of creating wealth from our extant circumstances - even if only so they can profit.

Curation rewards create financial incentive, profit, from deranging the content that is financially supported on Hive. That's not a sound principle. It's broken.

I don't care about my personal Hive tokens. I've never converted one of them to cash, sleeping in the woods instead when I had no money to pay rent. I care about Hive, and financial manipulation of content creation is bad for our community because it causes UBI - no effort rewards - to be delivered to folks that aren't producing the content that benefits our community best, which we will naturally curate out of our self interest.

You don't upvote my comments for financial rewards (I hope. There's probably far more financially rewarding investments you could make) You upvote them because they are beneficial to the community which you value. I sure intend them to be, and I hope I succeed. They encourage me not because of their financial value to me, but because of their financial cost to you. Upvoting me reveals my words are more valuable to you than the potential profits you could make if you invested those funds to gain ROI, and that matters to me.

I see it matters to you. That's why curation rewards are so toxic to Hive, as are rewards curves and vote timing, and all the rest of the tricks of the Hive ROI trade: they fail to benefit the community we are all part of and dependent on, and actively derange the creation of content and the information we are able to consume.

>"Are we here to change the paradigm, or bring the old rules to this new game?"

The problem is definition. Gravity is not a paradigm we should think we are changing. Natural mechanisms that build communities are not paradigms we should change. Grifting we should eliminate. Profit is good. Profiteering is bad.

>"The 50/50 split solved this issue, didn't it?"

So, reducing the rewards content creators received in order to hand half the rewards for their creation to no effort upvoters is somehow beneficial? No. All curation rewards decrease author rewards, which reduces effort to create content. Instead of encouraging substantial stakeholders to save their stake and receive interest, increasing curation rewards increased the derangement of content. It is because @edicted's savings accounts aren't the best mechanism to produce ROI from Hive stake that trending is such a joke.

There's good rent, that builds the community, and bad rent, that tears it down. Curation rewards are rent, and not the good kind.

>In the last three days I have put in ~32 hours siding a building in my community.

Yes, I understand how crapitalism works.
If you don't understand how homelessness and hunger are propagated by it, I have some books for you to read.
Homelessness and old people working serve to keep the young inline.
'You don't want to end up like that guy, do you?'

>I have but mentioned the HPS in passing,

83 million hive valued at ~10,790,000 seems plenty, especially since the code is viable with zero changes today.

If we need more code than 10m usd buys, we can vote it back in then.

>but advocate making the poor utterly dependent on those fat cats for their income?

Wtf? You want to give investors ubi.

I want folks to work for their rewards.
Kinda backwards being that I am the communist in this conversation.
Don't ya think?

> ~10 hours a day in hard physical labor to earn my way instead of taking free money,

You do realize that communism requires 20k hours of labor generally done between the ages of 20 and 50, after 50 you do what you want and everything is free, before 20 you do whatever it is you want and stuff is free then, too.

You do understand that you work those hours under crapitalism because some slut needed a new tennis bracelet and the only way the boss could afford one under crapitalism was to work you until you drop?
Or, maybe the boss needed a new car and only by not paying you the full value of your labor could he get it.
You do 1000usd worth of labor, he gives you, maybe, 200usd.
Yada, yada, he took all the risk, and had to wait for his money,...yada yada.

You still have too much koolaid in you, you really should read the books, imo.

>. I've never converted one of them to cash, sleeping in the woods instead when I had no money to pay rent.

So, what you have to ask yourself is if it is insane to slavish praise on a system that forced those circumstances on you.
Communists never would have forced that choice on you.
In fact, rather than see you starve outside full warehouses for lack of dime, they would have done what it takes to see that you succeed in life.
It's just how communism works.

>You don't upvote my comments for financial rewards (I hope. There's probably far more financially rewarding investments you could make)

I don't curate anybody for maximum roi, I reward people I think worthy.
I think you have been underappreciated here.
I think those you want to give the ubi to have been overrewarded, and I flag some of them, too.

>Upvoting me reveals my words are more valuable to you than the potential profits you could make if you invested those funds to gain ROI, and that matters to me.

Dan was adamant that rewards were to be shared, not hoarded, it has to be part of why he left given the thievery that linear rewards, and bidbots, promulgated.

>That's why curation rewards are so toxic to Hive, as are rewards curves and vote timing, and all the rest of the tricks of the Hive ROI trade: they fail to benefit the community we are all part of and dependent on, and actively derange the creation of content and the information we are able to consume.

I don't know why you want to give the abusers a free pass.
Hell, you want to give them ubi.
Have you been getting too much ned in your diet?

>Curation rewards are rent, and not the good kind.

Again, why do you want to reward the abusers?
You want to change the rules to suit them.

If we would flag the roi maximizers so that they get nothing for their effort, they will soon alter their behaviors.

I know you put a lot of thought into your answers, but you can't know what you don't know, and lordy, you are missing a lot of data concerning how crapitalism really works.

You simply refuse to answer my point regarding assets people invest.

The only acceptable action regarding assets people have, for you, is to redistribute it, against their will if necessary.

Theft is bad, Mkay?

I refuse to accept your world view as optimal, nor the only one.
(Because it is neither.)

I don't need to redistribute assets, the rich can keep their wealth.
I only ask that we move forward with a different distribution of people's labor.

Instead of the lion's share going to the haves through wage slavery, rent seeking, and usury, we distribute it according to desire.

Anything you desire can be had in my utopia, one only has to make it happen.

>Theft is bad, Mkay?

Tell that to the crapitalust that increased his building's value by XXk usd by adding siding to it, but only paid you, what, a few hundred dollars?

I actually hope you don't read those books, it is a pure misery to confront the mind warp crapitalism has financed through mandatory skooling.
I don't want to wish my daily misery on you like that.

As long as you accept the status quo, namely that having money entitles you to a bigger share of the monetary increase caused by adding labor to the asset, I doubt you will be capable of accepting what I say as true.

Bringing it back to giving ubi to folks that have spare money they don't need laying around to invest in speculative ventures, I don't buy into your assertion that having money entitles them to getting more money without inputting any additional labor.

They can continue to reap the pool with curation rewards as long as the flags don't take that hive back from them.
I'll be damned if I am going to just hand them their misbegotten gains because of some misplaced faith in a redistribution scheme that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

>"Tell that to the crapitalust that increased his building's value by XXk usd by adding siding to it, but only paid you, what, a few hundred dollars?"

I don't look at it like that. Today I started at 8 am, and just got done less than an hour ago. Roughly 16 hours. For the last hour it was raining, and of course it was dark, being night. It was difficult, but a storm is coming, and the lift costs ~$200/day, so it needed doing today, and I did it today, for my neighbor who needed it done.

I don't really care about the money, although he sure does, as you correctly surmise. I care about my community, and there's really no one else in town that would have done what I did for him today. But because I am here and did do it, one of the signature buildings in town has a fresh facade, and my neighbor is pretty damn grateful.

My community benefits when my neighbors benefit, not just crapitalists. If our buildings fall into disrepair because people don't take care of them, our community will slowly lose it's vibrant economic basis, and my neighbors will lose heart and live in a slum.

That's why I did it. Not for the couple grand he'll pay me (I've got over 60 hours in this week alone, and more hours in the previous week), but for the healthy community I get to live in when we take care of each other. More important to me than the money - although I need money - is his goodwill.

If I've got a problem he can solve, he'll solve it, just as I solved his problem with bad siding. He'll remember I sided his building in the rain, at night, in a 16 hour day, and he'll pay me money, but he'll amass goodwill to my credit that I reckon far more important in uncertain times when food shortages and totalitarian government threaten.

Don't put so much value on money. There's far more valuable reasons to do good for people.

Well, that is good to know.
I'd have used the same reasoning, in those circumstances.

So, now you want to explain why you want to pay rich people hive for having money?
Isn't it better that they do some work to get hive?

Look. Gravity is a fact of life, and so are assets. If you prefer to fantasize about fluffy bunnies, I can't help you be rational.

All you have been saying is 'Eat the Rich!' and that has no utility IRL. You don't even acknowledge that curation rewards are unavoidably deranging curation.

What has practical application? ROI that doesn't pervert society is easily attainable, and @edicted's description of how that stake invested in Hive can be used to not only fund ongoing development, but reduce inflation, is a side effect of sound governance that promotes healthy social interactions and content creation based on human values rather than hoarding tokens, not even the main benefit.

I think you're obsessed with slave tokens malevolent banksters conjure out of thin air in an ongoing global terrorist fraud against humanity.

Society has actual value. Money doesn't. Paying heed to what really matters enables rational policies that will actually economically benefit people, and deprecate profiteers. You should have the proper tools to successfully understand this, but you're so obsessed with money you can't even address actual value.

[IMAGE: https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/valued-customer/CV5UBuvM-Forbush20Man20-20degenerates.png]
IMG source - lifted from the psychos at kiwifarms.net

If we do away with money, we do away with this site's main attractor.
No effort rewards breaks pob.

The problems crapitalism creates in the society are not solvable with money.
Only a new approach to management solves these issues.
As long as we are forced to operate in a profit and loss environment mostly dog eat dog interactions will result.

If you don't understand how money corrupts us, read the posts I have scheduled over the next couple weeks.
I've broken them down into smaller bites in order to increase the chances folks read them.

I know we share most of our good ideas, but I have dropped the chains put on my mind (mostly) by those that indoctrinated me as a child, I hope you can see your way free of your indoctrination, too.

Crapitalism causes the pain you see in the larger society, it will not solve these issues, it created them on purpose.
Our society looks like this because those that can influence it want it this way.

>"... do away with money..."

I have never ever said to do away with money. I have advocated valuing it properly.

>"...understand how money corrupts us..."

I advocate doing exactly that regarding curation, considering how much more valuable to each of us and society is our speech than our money, and ending the derangement of curation with financial incentives.

Having assets does not cause corruption. The corrupt do gain assets via corruption however, and it is not meet that we set in place avenues that facilitate that corruption. Profit, ROI, investment, and capital are not evil. Investing is good and beneficial to all when it is done right.

Corrupting speech is not doing it right. Enabling entrepreneurs to develop Hive through underwriting development funds through savings accounts isn't automatically right either, but it can be done right, while curation rewards cannot.

> Having assets does not cause corruption.

The fear of loss of these assets leads many to the corruption trough.
The most sensitive measure their loss on a percentage of the whole.

While you may not act abusively to avoid being broke, again, many will slit your throat and be proud of it in their armani suits.

I agree fairly valued money increases the viability of the system, it still values things over people, and is intolerable for it.

I guess we'll find out what tptb will do with us some time after the hardfork smooths out,...

>"...many will slit your throat and be proud of it in their armani suits."

This is because they are corrupt. The fault is with them, neither with Armani suits nor my throat.

>"...fairly valued money...values things over people..."

No. That's the thing, the point of my endless rants. People and society are far more valuable than money. Properly valued money represents the goodwill of good people, and is a good thing, doing good.

Many think Jesus said "Money is the root of all evil." This is not the Biblical quote, which is 'The love of money is the root of all evil.' However, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, translated decades later into written Greek, and we thence read in English. Given the reality of the necessity of a sound economy to a healthy society, perhaps translating back to Aramaic and then again to English would better represent that it is self aggrandizement, perhaps a synonym for 'the love of money', that is the root of all evil.

Fear can be blamed for any evil, even fear of mundane harm, like stubbing one's toe, has been used to justify murderous evil. In fact there is no justification of murderous evil, and it doesn't matter what excuses for it are claimed by the corrupt. It is the corrupt that are the source of evil, including greed and the improper elevation of financial concerns over societal.

It is the absolutely corrupt that corrupt absolutely, not the power they seek to gain thereby.

Hmmm,...

>"There is no contradiction."

Okay Boss.

>"You are proposing a fundamental change to this game that has been suggested in the past by the folks that gave us bidbots, linear rewards, and a two year kneecappening that we are just now recovering from.
I'm shocked to hear you take their side."

I didn't undertake this discussion to rile you, but apparently pointing out that curation rewards focus the purpose of upvoting on financial manipulation rather than the value of content - actual curation - triggered you somehow. You now cast aspersions on my character and make insuperable, utterly nonsensical accusations insinuating I support bidbots.

ROI isn't evil. It's the reason investors invest. Curation rewards is the mechanism that provides most of the ROI on Hive presently, and it degrades curation, causing content on Hive to reflect that degradation, producing Trending as it currently exists.

What I suggest is that eliminating curation rewards and replacing that ROI with savings accounts will stop the degradation of curation and enable rational investors to attain ROI in a way that benefits Hive.

I'll leave the discussion there, because you have resorted to ad hominems in opposition to those facts, which reveals you will oppose rational policies regardless of reason. There's no point in continuing to rile you.

Lemme know if you become willing to discuss the actual point instead of deflecting with false insinuations.

@peakd, please, please, please make it so that when I click on reply I go to a page with a url.
Losing these hour long comments because I click an outside link is killing me.
If I had a page, with a url, that looked exactly like this page when my inner stupid expresses itself I would have a back button to make it better.

And, can we have a brave extension that changes hive.blog urls to peakd?
I can't believe that there is not one person in the world capable of doing it working to improve the looks of that frontend.

P.S. They could wrap their hive and earn eth.

They still can.

There's still no reason to create incentive to financially manipulate curation for ROI if whales can attain ROI without deranging curation.

So, are you saying that you would rather institutionalize the abuse instead of flag it?

Good to see you back @theycallmedan! We missed you! Love your perspective on Hive and the future of the community.

Biggest takeaway...Are the grinders here!

These people that have been here through thick and thin! I salute every single one of them.

It's so easy to show up on Hive when it's booming and everyone seems to be here creating content. But there are a bunch of us that haven't slowed down, kept showing up when everyone else jumped ship.

Man, I salute all of you guys! Talk about belief in something that will change so many lives. Let's keep building this awesome chain up.

Oh and looking forward to what you guys have coming up for 3 speak to...Can't wait!!

Two points:

• STOP THE MLM INITIATIVES.
  making communities work for bullshit shilling when the product is too simplistic is a road to nowhere.

• FINISH SMT DEVELOPMENT.
  deliver on something that was promised over 3 years ago that can actually cater to large onboarding and create a robust platform.

The latter is priority.
Achieve that and Hive has a future.
Return to the former if you wish.

Or die slowly.

Yep bingo, and stop paying out ridiculous payouts via the DAO. It's a leak in our dam, needs to be plugged.

I am new here in HIVE and to your 3speak! I would like to know more and listening to other videos. I think I am the only one here representing the Bodybuilding.

great idea! We need talks with goal posts and polls to move forward, otherwise we are just waiting for things to move. Obviously this is the crux with decentralization - everybody can act independently and therefore there isnt a central entity to push things forward. Having polls is a great idea because it is a 1 vote system: with this we will get a different image of how users see things and what we want to do.... Not that this is how we decide on things finally, but we will get a different picture rather than only seeing the big fish talking...

take away the reward pool hahahaha @theycallmedan take a look at smart cash cause thats what will happen lol too funny :)))) the last 5 hf did nothing but reduce rewards and intern market value but then again since you all are professional marketing and finances you know this so well i would have preferred 2 hive worth 4 bucks each then getting 40 worth 10¢ and this is on all the good initiatives dont seem actually good anymore but more like desperate moves which will only erode even further the market value please tell ... are you sure you know what your doing?

Congratulations @theycallmedan! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You distributed more than 52000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 53000 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:

Hive Power Up Day - Introducing the Power Up Helper!

Welcome back brother! Good to see you back and active!

Ned could've walked among us as a god, instead he let the dissent get under his skin.
He kneecapped us with linear rewards and went on a two year walkabout.
Then he sold us down the river.
Very vindictive, iyam.

Looks like you are up to bat.
It would take an intentional attack to do worse than the last 'leader' we had.

I've long advocated for a return of the whale experiment.
62 accounts would be restricted in what they could take out in curation rewards.
But, by evening out the playing field for the rest of us, this game might become worth playing for more people than those that already have alot of hive.

We've done it the unrestricted way, this is where it has taken us.
We agreed that linear rewards was a conjob and forked them out.
We know that unrestricted many of the top accounts have no problem making this about how much they can rake in.
They have clearly demonstrated that their own roi in hive is more important to them than adoption by more people.
I think we are better served by attracting more newbs than in ensuring how efficiently the already haves can get more.
Sybil attacks can be flagged, we are already doing that with @hive-dr.

39k usd gives a target for investors.
It is not all that much to risk, and guarantees that their investment roi won't be watered down by the ninjamine, the early sycophants of the ninjaminers, and curation gangs.
Maybe those with more than 500mv, not willing to wait for the network effect to raise prices, will sell us some more cheap hive.

At a minimum we could drop the 20hive curation penalty to 10.
This would double the influence on stake that the minnows get to play with.

In any event, glad to see you back in the saddle.

I strongly agree that Hive is availed of the means to effect it's policies by the combination of secure stake based voting and open discussion between peers. Hive is the leading edge of liquid democratic governance technological advance has finally potentiated through thousands of years of scientific development. From the philosophical musings of ancient Greece through the bloody Bronze Age competitions of political institutions to our present pinnacle of industrial and information technology, the ultimate goal of development in every field has all been to some degree purposed to attain this potential felicity of humanity.

While society and humanity generally are struggling to grasp the brass ring of rational governance and productive society, largely as a result of indoctrination and oppression imposed by centralized, corrupt institutions, I reckon it inevitable that reason and good faith will eventually produce felicitous civilization because that impulse is what builds it.

Contrary impulses are eventually quashed, because destruction of economically viable institutions and society is it's own fruit. What is sown is harvested.

Thanks for forthrightly intending and recommending the bountiful harvest of a happy future in the company of good and prosperous people. Hive is like the good tree from which that harvest can come, uniquely able through it's particular attributes to bring the felicity of our posterity to it's full fruition.

It is the means that is the end society has always sought, and we here, today, are it's first crop, the beginning of that wealth prophets in ancient days glimpsed in their fevered dreams. We are gardeners nursing a seedling from which a vast orchard will grow to produce the full fruition of human endeavor.

Let us work together to better our ability to grow free and prosperous society on Hive, so that when folks are exasperated and repelled at last by the barbarous and antiquated institutions and governance centralized overlords continue to impose, they are availed the good company and wealth rational society produces.

I believe Hive is the seed that will grow into that happy civilization, possessing the kernel of essential features of honest debate and prosperous economic commerce that has been the goal of human society throughout history. Our intention should be to feed and water Hive that all humanity can benefit from it's productive increase.

If I'm right, Moon is a baby step. Let's strap on League Boots and venture forth.

Thanks!

Here is a detailed summary article about the key topics discussed in this episode of TheyCallMeDan:

Hive's Potential for Improvement

Dan begins by acknowledging that while Hive is already a thriving community, there is always room for improvement. He believes the Hive community has a "harsh optimist" mentality - they are willing to openly critique areas that could be better, but with the ultimate goal of making Hive as strong as possible. Dan notes that Hive has undergone over 20 hard forks in just 4 years, demonstrating the community's willingness to take risks and quickly implement updates.

The Need for Decentralized Governance

One of Dan's main points is that Hive should move further towards decentralization and leaderless governance. He argues that Bitcoin, despite its popularity, does not truly have a central leader that can dictate the direction of the network. Dan believes the Hive community itself should be the primary "leader", with open collaboration, debate, and stake-weighted voting driving the decision-making process.

Leveraging Tools Like dPoll

To facilitate this decentralized governance model, Dan encourages the Hive community to make greater use of tools like dPoll to put proposals up for community-wide votes. He suggests ideas like a 5% token burn penalty, as well as discussions around inflation, should be put to a stake-weighted vote on dPoll to gauge the broader community sentiment.

Hive's Unique Advantages

Dan remains extremely bullish on Hive's long-term potential, arguing that its combination of a social platform and stake-weighted voting gives it unique advantages over other blockchain projects. He believes Hive is well-positioned to capitalize on emerging trends like DAOs, NFTs, and decentralized applications.

The Importance of Community Involvement

Ultimately, Dan emphasizes that now is a critical time for the Hive community to get involved and make their voices heard. He argues that as Hive continues to grow, it will become increasingly difficult to change course, so the community needs to actively shape Hive's future direction. Dan encourages everyone with a stake in Hive's success to participate in discussions, submit proposals on dPoll, and hold witnesses accountable through their voting power.

Notice: This is an AI-generated summary based on a transcript of the video. The summarization of the videos in this channel was requested/approved by the channel owner.