Simply because people there (in the Facebook groups) actually care about the content, and their interactions are natural.
They show how a properly working social network works.
And this is why this should be the same in the so called Hive communities too to have a properly working social network.
So the Hive users should do the same.
They should actually care about the content, and have natural interactions. And not forced.
The rewards alone are not bad.
The Hive blockchain users make it bad (both to themselves and to the whole Hive blockchain) by focusing too much on it, and often literally ignoring (not caring about) the content, even as a so called content creator.
The code practically forces them to. People naturally have a prudential responsibility to manage their wealth, and curation rewards being coded in make managing their curation rewards a sacred duty. Failing to maximize their curation rewards can even be considered a sin by certain interpretations of scripture.
The problem is the curation rewards. People naturally engaging with content out of interest are very willing to upvote good content, as your examples of interactions on other platforms demonstrates. Curation rewards aren't necessary to incentivize people to upvote good content. What curation rewards are necessary to do on Hive is allow stake to be rewarded, for investment to receive ROI. Prior to HBD savings accounts, besides the ~3% staked Hive holders receive of inflation, curation rewards were the mechanism created for investors to gain a return on their investment in Hive.
You don't need to invest any money to gain author rewards, but curation rewards specifically depend on the amount of stake you hold.
Curation rewards are, in fact, the problem.
Then why not make it a flat ROI for all active curators, regardless of how they use their voting power, so long as they use it for something? Also remove the dust rule?
@edicted long ago suggested that savings accounts with nominal interest could provide better ROI for investors without perverting curation with financialization, and I have strongly supported that idea, and still do. While HBD savings accounts with 20% interest (now reduced to 15%) advented, curation rewards remained potential and this allowed the financialization to continue to pervert curation.
There simply isn't any need for curation rewards. Myriad social media platforms enable folks to upvote content for subjective reasons, which is the definition of curation, and without receiving financial incentives for doing so. There is no lack of curation on any such platform. People have other values besides money that cause them to curate content, and in fact these values are far more valuable than mere money. Mike Tyson said that Don King (his manager) would sell his mother for a dollar, and curation rewards are perfect for the Don Kings of the world, but unnecessary for anyone that loves their mother more than a dollar - or any other societal value, like truth, justice, or apple pie.
Curation rewards are not only unnecessary, they are utterly contradictory to functional social media platforms, and Steem and Hive have well demonstrated why this is so.
Edit: also, the dust rule is simply economic reality. Transactions on the network have costs, and when they are below the cost of transmitting them, storing them, and etc., doing so drains the network of necessary resources. The dust rule isn't a conspiracy to cheat the poor, but is necessary to prevent spam and infinitesimally tiny transactions that have the same costs as ~$1M transactions from bleeding the network of resources.
I agree that "curation" has no practical value in theory, but it does seem to have a very legitimate psychological value. In fact before we even have this conversation I'd have to point out that calling it "curation" is a farce, as upvoting content doesn't curate anything and it is the frontends of Hive that curate all the content seen by almost all users.
The psychological value of curation is that it does seem limit greed a little bit by making giving money away a pill that becomes a little bit easier to swallow. I call it a "kickback" instead of "curation" because that's what it is after the changes we've made over the years. At this point it's a flat 50/50 partnership between ourselves and the person being allocated inflation.
We can try to make an argument that this is wasted inflation... but that would be a lie unless you believe we shouldn't be diluting stake that isn't powered up. Seeing as most stake not powered up sits on exchanges and acts as an existential threat to the network it would be foolish not to dilute it with inflation emissions like "curation". We don't want centralized agents with massive amounts of stake to have even more power.
I completely agree, except that curation rewards are both unnecessary and counterproductive to that dilution. They are counterproductive because they reward stake, which author rewards do not, and so act to concentrate stake. It is author rewards that best distribute stake, create resilience to hostile takeovers, and best leverage social media in that market.
All sorts of creators are trying to flee 2gen social media that is centralized, censored, and vulnerable to oppressive government. Decentralization is the critical 3gen advantage that can break that deathgrip governments are increasingly choking society to death with, as Twatter and Telegram demonstrate by capitulating to government oppression they cannot resist because they are centralized. Serve the market for free speech and Hive will moon, and that will better financially reward whales than maintaining their deathgrip on Hive governance through unrestrained taxation, curation rewards, and plutocratic control of the witnesses. It will also enable global resistance to increasing government oppression, and that is existentially more valuable than money, as history well reveals.
Unfortunately this is just the theory and not the actual reality.
Just like most people live paycheck to paycheck, so do most earners sell all their rewards right back to the big stake holders that gave them the reward in the first place.
This isn't even the theory.
It's just mathematically incorrect and you keep saying it.
Again, only non-powered up tokens are being diluted.
If I own 1% of the network and I earn 10% yield, I do not suddenly own more than 1% of the network.
The other accounts that only own 0.1% continue to own 0.1% after earning their 10% yield.
Truly I do not understand why people on Hive insist on making this mistake even after being corrected.
Tricks with maths don't alter the reality that author rewards go to folks independent of stake and curation rewards are functions of stake. The reality is that curation rewards are ROI for investors, were conceived of as ROI. Author rewards distribute stake. Whether the authors keep it or sell it is a different matter. Curators can - and do - pay attention to what authors do with their stake, and that affects curation.
That's exactly how it works already as long as you vote within 24 hours.
I agree this is a dumb compromise and a bastardized version of how it should be.
At the same time it's also a reminder of our history of economic policy.
I thought it was also based on how much a post earns, and how many people vote on it?
Hopefully one day those reminders will fade, we can always rely on stories for reminders :) ....
!PIZZA
It is. The higher the author rewards on a post, the higher curation rewards are.
I think the dust rule is mainly in effect if a post/comment is 50/50 hbd/hp, I'm talking to @peakd to see if comments could automatically be set to use 100% power up to give curators and authors a chance to earn even .001 hp if that means the dust threshold can be bypassed in that case. Still checking on the latter.
It would definitely add up in the long run, especially now that we have Inleo and Waves
Only a handful of people make content on web2 for income compared to rest of the users there. To get to a place where u can earn from your content is hard, takes a lot of time, resources, commitment, etc. This also forces people to stand out and put in a lot of effort into the content which drives demand for that content.
Here we don't have any "amazing" content creators so demand is quite low, we're all just regular folks with close to no influence outside of Hive or income from any web2 platforms. There's not many people who would pay to consume the content being produced here, no advertisers, etc.
That's a big reason why it is hard to compare the two platforms with each other. Here anyone can earn something for posting and that's what they'd gravitate towards because that's what's being rewarded, whether it is worth the rewards or not is out of our control as inflation has to go somewhere. So why not direct some of that inflation towards engagement as well? Just because it may cause some people to only comment for the rewards? Why not empower smaller users to be able to reward their engagements with some value if their voting power isn't high enough to get them rewarded? Just because it may reward a few people who are only commenting for the rewards?
Hope you understand that complaining about a project like this generating fake engagement is a bit like complaining hive itself is creating low demand content. It can't be helped at this point in time because we barely have active users and the rewards are skewed towards those posting or curating. We can't figure out how with the current way things operate how it would evolve and scale with 100k or 1m daily users because we haven't gotten there yet.
Yes, we did. Flaggots chased them off the platform, including the 'influencers' like David Pakman that came here before Steem was Steamrolled. You were here then. You should remember. They were so outraged at being taxed by everyone for any reason - or no reason at all - as any business would be in the same circumstance, that everyone with any reach anywhere else on the internet left here with a bad taste in their mouth and spread the word like butter on bread.
PS. That graph in the end of 2021 mainly represents @splinterlands players who we've now found out most weren't even aware they had a hive account or what hive was.
Which could have been leveraged with a bit of reason to create an influx of social media users to Hive, but wasn't. Instead the DHF funds a rally car and all manner of expenditures unrelated to social media to the tune of $M's.
Outrageous taxation policies have been deliberately used to prevent Hive growth so that the extant oligarchy that controls Hive governance by having the most votes (stake) kept that control. A growing platform would attract IRL stakes to whom Hive's entire market cap is lunch money, and that would threaten to steemroll the oligarchy that currently has a death grip on Hive governance.
Censorship is any suppression of speech, and it is blatantly obvious that DV taxation is extremely effective at discouraging speech. That's why it works to suppress spam, scams, and plagiarism - which cross-posting isn't - and why it has been the tool to prevent Hive from becoming an attractive investment to substantial off platform capital, so the control of Hive governance did not escape the grasp of extant oligarchs.
This is also why the DHF is being bled out, because it is a cash reserve vulture capitalists particularly target, as Bain Capital Partners and KKR have repeatedly demonstrated. Decentralizing governance by more broadly distributing Hive rewards would have enabled Hive growth while preventing the steemrolling Sun Yuchen used to captured Steem, but the oligarchy preferred to maintain their majority of stake and control of governance even at the cost of $.1 Hive.
A bird in hand...
Now the market of social media users, more desperate than ever for censorship resistance platforms, rightly sees Hive as less attractive than Fakebook, Twatter, or Youtool because those platforms are less censored. Every Hive user being able to tax any creator to the limit of their stake, with whales deliberately targeting influential accounts for spurious reasons - like the disapproval of cross-posting you refer to - belies the claim Hive is censorship resistant due to the blockchain permanence of content, because such persistence is economically useless when taxed to death with DV's.
The reek of rampant censorship is a taint Hive could dispel by ending unrestrained taxation, and Hive could leverage it's technical advantages and economic potential to reward creators and moon. It won't, because three dozen whales control the governance of Hive by possessing the majority of stake, at least not until the DHF is empty and diverted into their wallets. Once the corpse of Hive is wrung dry of ROI and cash reserves they'll move on, just like Bain Capital Partners or KKR do.
thanks for reminding me why I have you muted.
if all you do is crosspost which takes close to 0 effort by pakmans social manager you can't expect to get free rewards for years and years after showing no attempts to give something back to the ecosystem. it's happened with many similar influencers.
Go back to steemit and take pakman with you, no downvotes there and look at where the rewards are going if you wanna complain about centralisation of stake.
you mean Blurt!
You rant about BS that has nothing to do with the issue you have been a primary cause of, through taxing creators beyond tolerability. Keep muting rational criticism - until the money runs out. Then you'll wonder how it all went to shit, because you're not listening to reason.
Maybe you'll get it when it's too late to do a damn thing about it, like many people do.
They cross-posted here for years with no attempt or intention to promote their existence even with the advantages it gave and still gives their following. Pakman was the only one who did a couple videos with Steemit regarding the platform but they weren't even shared on web2.
We need influencers who understand why promoting this place is good for them and their following longterm, not influencers who just cross-post their content for extra "free" rewards and never attempt to bring anyone here, I'd rather support non influencers putting in more effort here in that case.
Which is exactly how anyone anywhere found out about this platform.
Cross-posting is Hive's marketing department. Flagging them eradicated the market for Hive, and today we live the result. DV's are taxes, and suppress economic activity by the same mechanism taxes do. They are exactly the same as Trump's recent threat to John Deere to levy a 200% on their products sold in the US if they move manufacturing to Mexico.
If you don't support someone, don't upvote them. Taxation is theft.
How does them cross posting here, getting almost always 0 engagement while raking in thousands upon thousands of rewards while none of their web2 followers ever found out they were posting here help our platform? Can we not go over the same stories over and over again? If influencers don't do anything over time to promote the network in any way then what is the point of taxing the chain with free rewards towards them who already make a lot elsewhere.
It's not really in your wheelhouse, this social media thingy, but that's how it happens.
You've demonstrated what your tax policies do to social media for seven years. Perhaps you should examine the results and rethink things.
I like to think Hive can be for everyone as long as they contribute somehow, if you find an influencer who after a while values Hive and what it can do for not only themselves but their following too and attempts to promote it in any way feel free to hit me up and I'll throw all of my voting power towards them. Until then, no I'm not going to let them forever get autovotes and leech the network for minimal effort, no SEO, etc. I'd rather those rewards go to people like you who clearly care about this place and are still active.
All that said there's still a lot of real and genuine engagement going on here, more than on the copies of our chain and being able to reward that better and easier is a good thing. If you notice people commenting only based on the rewards you can just ignore them. Like I some times notice some leaving quite general AI-generated-sounding comments on my posts, if you don't reward them over time they'll give up, but if you reward the good ones you may get more good comments. It's up to each author themselves and then the curators can notice that and decide to maybe vote the genuine looking posts and comment section more to make up for the rewards forfeited towards engagement.
I could hardly agree more. However, this isn't what you do. You tax authors into penury. That is blatant censorship, and has resulted in an exodus from Hive of >1m actual people that came here and undertook the learning curve to post and gain that economic return for their content Hive advertised.
You kill the goose that lays the golden egg.