Because you're using your power to override the positive opinion of someone else who gave their upvote. And the real reason you're giving the downvote is something else entirely: to combat Hive inflation according to your own criteria. I believe quality should be rewarded with upvotes, not punished with downvotes. Downvoting for plagiarism, spam, or other reasons is a valid reason. It's also valid to use it to lower a post's rating to reflect reality. It's simple: what's the point of downvoting for 0.35 cents, for example, someone who spent an hour creating a post, who put in the effort, even if you personally don't like it, if you then upvote someone for a comment they made in seconds for more money? By redirecting rewards, you end up voting twice: once with an upvote and again with a downvote.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Downvotes don't counter inflation at all. All inflation (with the exception of the DHF and HBD interest) is programmatic. It will be issued as rewards. All DV's do is redirect the inflation, mostly to the whales, whom capture >90% of the rewards pool.
If you want to decrease inflation, then the DHF and HBD interest are your huckleberries.
Ok no that’s cherry picking what I said.
I have been saying I vote with my opinion and trying to articulate my opinion is nuanced and changing.
But you want to chain me to a metal pole for the things I’ve said?
Ok fine, so in this instance you had no upvote and I downvoted you.
What is it in this case? I’ll tell you. I’m sharing my opinion. And I think you said something in bad faith.
You took me out of context and used it against me.
I think that’s inappropriate.
According to your criteria, what you did was fine. You have more HP than me; you have the power. Would you invest in a network where, if someone with more power than you gets angry, they can cancel your account by downvoting you?
Maybe if I ask in bullets this will be easier:
Who decided what the down button is for? (Please show me the document that validates this.)
Who decided that every post deserves some reward based on how much time someone spent on the post?
(Please show me the document that validates this.)
DV's are taxation. Bloggers are all delivering a product to the market. Upvotes are buying what they're selling. DV's tax their sales. The opposite of an upvote is no vote. No vote is no sale, the opposite of a sale.
Hive enables any stakeholder to tax any of their competitors to the limit of their stake. Imagine if Ford could tax Toyota's every sale 100%. How long would Toyota continue to manufacture products for sale? If everybody could tax any sale to the limit of their stake, as is possible on Hive, no one would sell any products, and we'd be living in the Stone age.
Because of unlimited taxation 99.99% of users that onboarded and overcame the learning curve to blog on Hive have left the platform, and with a bad taste in their mouth that they spew on anyone that they can hold down long enough to listen to them complain about censorship and being robbed of their rewards. They're not wrong. Taxation is theft.
As long as Hive allows unlimited taxation of anyone's rewards on a whim Hive will continue to lose 99.99% of people that join, and maintain the absolute worst user retention of any social media platform in the history of the world.
And the ~36 whales that maintain a bare majority of stake will continue to completely rule the pure plutocracy Hive is by controlling the consensus witnesses and determining what code runs, which they today choose to enable them to capture >90% of the inflation issued from the rewards pool.
That is the real reason for unlimited taxation on Hive - to enable the ~36 whales to maintain their lock on governance by preventing broader distribution of stake that would diminish their bare majority.
The honest answers to your questions are:
it doesn't matter. What matters is the IRL effects of DV's.
the market decides the value of content.
A free market isn't taxed, because taxation is theft and free markets do not suffer theft. Insofar as there is theft the market is not free, but coerced.
Thanks!
There is a lot to unpack there. I’m not sure where I land on all this stuff.
Lots of people have opinions which is great but there are too many countervailing views in my opinion.
I hope you take your time unpacking the points I have made, and do your very best to prove me wrong on any or all of them. Nothing will more convince you of something than not being able to disprove it, and if you can disprove it I might be able to quit being wrong and become right about it.
If you have any questions I will do my best to clarify anything you find poorly stated, or provide evidence that has convinced me of these things. The disagreement of honest folks is valuable because it enables honest discussion, and that enables honest folks to learn things they didn't know, which is more valuable - at least to me - than money.
I prefer to find facts and truth where I can.
I genuinely believe the answer to "what a downvote is," will never be defined.
A downvote and how it is used is going to be shaped by the personality and weight of the stakeholders at a given point in time. The personality and weight of stakeholders will always change so how a downvote is used and what it is will always change.
I think what you have proposed is your definition, and your definition is true to you.
To me real world analogies will fall short of capturing what HIVE is because what HIVE is will never be defined.
I think you should consider the purpose of upvotes and downvotes on the red.
But you have more HP than me, so you can delete my account.
I literally have no idea what you are talking about
@sk1920 is this question unreasonable?