Lets be honest. If Hive worked the way it should then downvotes would never be required. because the people of the blockchain determine what should be upvoted and what should not be upvoted not a single entity. These curation accounts should have zero down vote capabilities. If there's a required downvote then there's a huge flaw in the system IMO but also goes to prove why a 100% decentralized solution would never work. Peoples natural greed takes over and it turns into spam and hording of the reward pool like we have seen on steem.
So that's where I come down to. Hive is policed just like a web2 blockchain when you think about it. But honestly that's ok because I never see a world were true decentralization will work.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
That's true and not only that I feel more "free" to speak my mind on twitter.
There are many things I simply will not discuss on Hive, because power stake or those who are using stake police from POV. (Point of view) and then scramble for real reasons afterwards.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
The problem is financialization. Hive can organize it's financial mechanisms differently. It's not a trivial thing, I concede. However, there's a long litany of negatives that have been proven to derive from automating social interactions and substituting pecuniary interest for curation. Fixing the problems would simultaneously eliminate the profit motive for spam, scams, plagiarism and bot nets.
As AI becomes impossible to police, human posts will become unable to reward. Hive will become an AI ROI generation mechanism, and people won't have any use for it anymore.
We can settle for that - the end of Hive - or we can set out to deliver rewards that are more valuable to people than money for creating and curating content, enabling Hive to surf the wave of technological advance in a way that benefits and strengthens our community.