Stake-based Privileges versus Merit Based Privileges

Determining what is a fair model that's close to distributing wealth to users based on the core principles why the stake was built by the community from the start.

What if we have a community where everyone pitched in some piece of their resources to support others on the platform? That's great, this gives more incentives to those newbies to grow their accounts and those that have more can help out even without any direct active involvement, their HP can indirectly impact others.

Now the problem is how to distribute the wealth better with the fancy tipping system, there are two approaches here when it comes to implementing voteme privileges:

Stake-based privileges versus Merit Based Privileges

Now as much as I like the stake-based voting privileges because it follow the natural flow of give more so you can get more directly from your HP delegated, this also means more competition for the limited voting power for members that don't delegate or have little HP to offer for the community. That means for users that are new, haven't built their stake or chronically powering down, they get a reduced voting percentage compared to those that can offer more.

This may look fair but the account isn't setup to be a guaranteed self-vote, the function is a side perk privilege and meant to be used for people that can benefit the growth the most. For users that had spent more than half a year but still haven't built their own stake, you're missing the point if you think your tenure on the platform means anything. You could be existing on the platform without ever involving yourself with the community, yet have this thinking like the support is just freely handed because you exist. Stake-based voting privileges benefits those who give more and and get more but it squeezes out the smaller users of the community.

Merit-based voting privileges is the current system implemented. If you do more for the community, you get rewarded more, despite not giving any delegations because none of that is a requirement, by being peer reviewed as a member by others, you earned that access from community acceptance and you can raise the perks from getting more involved with the community.

The cons of this system is that not every engagement automatically means value is being added to the community. One can just be active without doing actually doing anything significant. One can be triggering the voting privileges on others but it's just a repeating cycle on the same names or small circle group. These behaviors aren't really beneficial for community growth overall. The point was to spread the benefits and invest on individuals that are interested in growing their accounts on Hive while being of help to others.

The exclusion criteria is includes users that have existed for a long time but still refused to get involved, users that chronically cash out more than they reinvest into the platform, users that have a barren section on the comments, users that don't really want to be involved with this community's vision and others.

Whatever resources people earn from the platform is their choice on what they want to do with it, cash out, support someone, reinvest and etc. But depending on these behaviors and their long term outcomes are the basis on which users end up being dead weights, excess baggage, value leaks or extractors, by all means you're entitled to do whatever you want with what you have but don't guilt trip this community into thinking you're entitled to get supported for existing.

Anyone can check the /profile command on hivephilippines and see the voting track record there. The diversity of names is being monitored and so as the voteme channel usage. If you think there is some bias about some names being favored, you can just hit me up at #iron-cage and we'll talk it out as a community because transparency reasons.

Adjusting the voting powers

Any delegator who feels like this is unjust can take out their delegations from the community anytime. Nobody is obligated to support the community account and you'll be doing us a favor by reducing that sense of entitlement you feel. The fact that HivePH has been generous at supporting people who are new and users that have been around is already something.

In other curation communities, you're expected to provide some quality content posts because that's the ideal way to get some rewards. Here, I understand not everyone can create good content but you can still try your best to make a post and get some small rewards for your trouble. I know this fact gets taken for granted because most would be chasing those big votes, even if sporadic, unpredictable and maybe part of the system includes luck, they'll be chasing for things that aren't guaranteed.

You just can't build on people that don't know how to reinvest value, no sense of long term growth or know how to pay it forward. And once you let these people flock your community, don't expect that they'll be any value left as everyone sucks it off dry then leave.

I've been here long enough to know which ones are just giving a decent lip service so don't even try selling me crap about how much you love the community. I'm not evaluating user behavior based on what they did in a week or month, I'm checking what they've been doing for years and they just can't fake this part since there are permanent paper trails to give me a good grasp of a person's growth potential.

I believe in people in investing in the right people can lead to better community health. I'm not after great content creators to fill this community, I'm just after people that can put commune in the community while keeping their altruistic side more dominant than their greed. I know everyone here has monetary incentives in mind but keep it controlled and manage your expectations.

Whenever voteme balancing acts are done, I'm not considering how it impacts only one person of that role but also other people, One representative from the Sirena Angkan has X voting power and if they have friends, that means I have to multiply the average daily consumption this user has on triggering the voteme.

For every 100% on the voting mana used, it decreases 2% of the accounts VP for the day, and it recharges about 2.4 Hours. That means part of the balancing act is resource management. You think this is unlimited resource because the VP just magically recharges right? well consider there is only 24 hours and each account gets only a chance for the vote to be triggered once, how many users and their VP are expected to use this channel based on a week or month's data? then keep on readjusting because each time people adjust their voting patterns on the voteme availability, I also need to adjust the numbers to rebalance the new set of voting behaviors and monitoring this is done regularly.

If you're only concerned about your account's benefit, it's easy to miss this part because you're not really managing multiple people's expectations on the reward system. I can take some flak about being unfair that I decrease or increase the VP based on a whim, because these statements just come from people that have no idea what I really do or the value it brings.

Some may complain why the channel becomes unusable because the VP constantly is sitting below 88%, well have has anyone considered checking the diversity of new names popping up the platform compared to the previous weeks or months? the influx of new users could also signal more demand and VP is a limited supply.

If we shifted to a stake-based voting system, would everyone be amenable to the idea that you're going to get less than what you receive right now considering a lot of the members aren't even delegating, and the delegators that do delegate may or may not get more from the deal? I know the stake-based voting privilege approach solves the VP challenge quickly because now people would likely enjoy 0.01$ upvotes on a daily basis, some anyway, and it keeps the VP up for everyone.

I'm leaving it up to the community to decide what direction they want to be rewarded. I know I'm nobody's crowd favorite for not being a pleasing personality because that's just not how I sell my craft. I have always tried to be as fair for everyone as much as possible and willing to take some flak being the bearer of bad news but I do reach a boiling point since none of this level of effort is really compensating me enough for my time.

If anyone is interested in the Lead role, you're welcome to apply. I'll be more than willing to just take a back seat. Pick your poison.

Sinulat ni Adam~