Other than having the option to freely shitpost and reduce the clutter of topics I share on the other account, this one doesn’t trigger automated upvotes when posting. Don’t get me wrong, the tips are nice but it’s better to just not get intoxicated with the whole get paid to have an opinion or sharing subjectively what you find interesting online.
The best thing this platform has to market outside is also one of the worst things I later found out after taking a step back. What I mean is the whole social reward system on Layer 1 being a constant source of drama for people. It’s nice to get a big leap by earning from an opinion or content but the consequences of being conditioned to receive those rewards are just as toxic as the good it brings.
I know we can look past the upvotes as a tipping gesture for a thought. But other sides of the reward system include misrepresenting genuine human interactions and reducing them to a transactional level. One can upvote because they like the content, want the passive rewards from curation, or just like the person, the end point is distributing more of it.
The problem comes when authors get deluded that their thoughts shared entitles them to get compensation for what? Sharing a piece of opinion or interest that most of the time less than ten people actually pause to read?
And there’s the thing about autovotes, I do wish there was a more refined way for hive.vote or other autovoting tools out there to help the author signal the bots that it’s a shitpost therefore it probably shouldn’t get voted on. Once in a while I thought of just sharing 1 paragraph and a photo because I think it’s nice but that seems like low effort content as I get like 10$ average on whatever post I put on my main hence why I became more selective about the topics I share there and post it under here instead.
EDIT: Setting beneficiaries to hbdstabilizer or opt to burn rewards solves the above problem.
Some opinions don’t need to be rewarded but if they do, thank the people that bother to consume your content but don’t get stingy with the people that don’t. Vast majority of what is considered Hive viral isn’t exactly content that could go viral outside. And the posts that go to trending are a product of having a limited set of names to vote on that puts out decent content or something.
I'm not even sure if the ones upvoting on the other account are actually reading so that only makes me question whether it's deserved if it ever gets taken to trending.
If every account used their stake to vote on “quality content”, refined and all the nice thing you can tell about the post, everyone would be earning less than what they currently yield for their opinion posts/interests. That’s a reality where everyone can attempt to be a blogger. I ain’t trying to throw shade at those don’t have the skills to blog as well as the top, we all had to start somewhere in hobby blogging, my pet peeve comes from reading reactions that scream entitlement to social rewards.
Having my post be on trending is more of a stressful experience because I don’t think my interests or opinions don’t really deserve that much but it’s always a thank you for those that do appreciate it.
If you made it this far reading, thank you for your time.
Im not 100% sure if this is the same thing, but I'll share this...
I joined the chain in 2017. There were crazy payouts then (not to me). Many of the things getting big payouts seemed pretty sime or downright stupid. I didnt understand it. Then it just seemed to me to be a series of circle-upvoting. This was a big turn off to me and i mostly stepped away from the platform until 2019-20. The Steem to Hive drama helped reinvigorate my interest...I believe that drama helped the chan a lot...take a self look and reassess the goals. I agree...real, authentic interaction and voting is critical.
@arcange gave an awesome interview recently and spoke of Hives"s triple component; technical, financial, and social. The tech is the chain. The financial is the money component. And the social is our interactions. It's a 3 legged stool...each impacts the other.
Good points you have.
I never heard of his interview but I agree on the points made there. This tech is amazing and really does change lives. I'm just disillusioned on some parts of the tech especially the financial and social parts. If majority of the community wants to reward quality content, it would accept that many aren't really content creators and just content consumers who try out content creation or miss out on the reward opportunities.
And curators, while the word has been reduced to button clickers or automated bots, majority don't have the stake to make a difference in payout but rely on pooled delegations to make substantial vote values. You can hire a professional artist and they can sift through the art posts here but if they only have 50 hp the chances of their supported posts are slim getting to trending, even abyssmal if you saw the platform way back in 2017.
The downvote drama is also another thing the makes this chain entertaining. Like people can accept being told their content deserves money but they can't accept that some people can dislike them or their stuff and those have monetary consequences just as the opposite of what an upvote can do. It's ridiculous and it's a hazard to social interaction to mind the rewards because it may lead people to reduce their relationships to monetary consequences. Not all the time this happens but it happens especially when people take full advantage of their network.
I admit, I don't quite understand the downvote issue entirely. It does seem to generate a lot of passion. My thought has always been...just do your (my) thing, be real about it, and let things work out as they will. It'll most likely be okay.
Anyway, that interview is at https://peakd.com/hive-167922/@jongolson/hmpalavq if you're interested.
Your life will come easier when you don't mind the downvotes. Most that whine about it fall under the category of having their post found out plagiarized, penalized for spam, retaliation and genuine dislike. The latter two are just subjective monetary penalties, it's not frowned upon to reward stupid content but you're the villain for expressing disdain for content you don't disagree being rewarded. It's a complex issue and drama but the general rule I follow is don't enter into those latter two situations because you're only going to get burned (unless you're really asking for drama which some users actually do).
Thanks, will check it out some time.
At least there seems to be less shit posting involved with an account we all remember but no one wanted to get in a flag war with him. He seems to have powered down most of his funds and leaving them liquid, waiting for his final pay day before just relying on his alts to make money.
I'm not sure who that is but I have my guesses. Plenty of candidates come to mind. Not everyone is a content creator and it just feels like a piss on those that really put their effort on a content but no visibility. I do think setting hbdstabilizer, burn, and decline rewards are good options, but then again I want my shitpost to be visible too just cause? Hbdstabilizer as beneficiary and burn would now be my likely choices in the future.
So easy: decline rewards when you create your post.
Nice, been long in the platform and never tried that option out yet, curators still get their curation rewards for bothering with the post and only author rewards get burned? and choosing to set the rewards to burn mean both author and curator rewards are burned?
When you decline rewards, nobody will get any reward.
When you select burn, the author's payout is burned but the curators still get their reward.
When you decline the rewards, all the rewards go back to the reward pool, including the curation rewards. (this is different than setting beneficiary)
If you want to keep the curation rewards, you can set the beneficiary to @null to burn only the author rewards. Although I would recommend setting beneficiary to @hive.fund or @hbdstabilizer for sending the author rewards to the DAO instead of burning them.
Thanks for clarifying the difference @arcange and @mahdiyari. I previously thought burn was all going to null and decline rewards was author and curation rewards going back to the pool (both of it). Burn seemed like a better choice because I still want curators to get their curation returns but I forgot Hbdstabilizer was also active so that makes it even a better program to support to.
Thank you for your post. I really like how your mind works. I will keep in mind to do better on content.
Congratulations @aadamada! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 100 replies.
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
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!