The proposal isn't the end of this thing. The proposal is basically ratifying the decision that was already made or altering it to fit the will of the community + investors. The individual users can still use the proposal system to plead their case and I have spoken to witnesses that are entirely for them doing that and will even help them appeal to the investors they need to get the votes to fix the problem.
All in all, there are people with fundamental ideological disagreements about what we are trying to do and rewarding them for that is not in our best interests. No one owes anyone anything, when the chain split and HIVE became it's own thing, none of us had to get anything. They could have simply said here you all start with nothing, they could have restarted mining like STEEM had done initially and repeated the premine bullshit, or anything else they wanted. This is what we got and if anyone wants to change it, well that's what the proposals are for and yes as always the people with the most invested will have the biggest impact on the decision.
It is what it is, nothing is going to make everyone happy. Personally I am for no additional blanket airdrops as these are mostly people that acted to sabotage STEEM in favor of centralization and the actions they have taken afterwards only reinforce that. Hopefully you can find peace with whatever happens, but I am totally of the mindset that not rewarding people for trying to collectively fuck us all over is the only logical decision here. If there weren't trying to do that, then tell them to make a proposal and plead their case.
The latest post, which highlights three proposals, is constructed in such a way as to allow for a prescribed winner. The prescribed winner is the only one of the three that are against the aggrieved parties, and the aggrieved parties are divided (conquered) into two camps. This means, even though they are on the same side, they're forced to steal votes from each other, and this ensures they will both lose.
The way I see it, something like this was HIVEio's one opportunity to right a wrong, but the effort is a ruse. How much support would a single hive account have to garner to trigger an airdrop? I don't know how realistic these single proposals are. I know I voted for rollandp on the steem blockchain so he could get his funds back, but I'm not sure it's going to happen or if it did happen.
The way I see it, these low SP accounts were voting for a witness, or for someone to vote for witnesses on their behalf. Had they known it was going to trigger a chain split and the community would veer left, there's a good chance they may have voted in a different way, but we'll never know because they had to vote in a prescribed manner before the announcement of HIVE. This thing is so weird, and the very idea of contrived voting systems seems completely abhorrent to me.
When I think of voting, people ought to vote for whomever they want. And they agree that based on the consensus of the vote, they will follow the leader who won. Only this time, the votes, some of which may have been cast well before Sun arrived at the blockchain, caused a skew in the space-time continuum and resulted in two winners. One based on dPoS and the other based on the will of the witnesses who lost. And they were so salty that they targeted penny-ante accounts to make them pay for "voting incorrectly."
At some point, someone will fix the fundamental problems that Larimer/Scott left in their wake, and their models of blockchain will get laid to rest in the dustbin of history. I'm not sure it can be fixed by changing code, or if it's just rearranging deck chairs. I guess that someone will have to create something that unfucks all the problems from scratch. They'll have to be a bright coder capable of seeing all the angles.
I think this is why you keep feeling the vote was unfairly used to exclude people from the airdrop. In a democracy of people necessarily dependent on the vote because the polity involved is a geographic region in which they reside, that is the reality of voting.
Blockchains and social media platforms are absolutely different. No one has to agree to abide by the majority vote at all. Not accepting the vote does not force them to rebel against the polity that rules their homeland.
They're not forced to participate at all. It is completely different than voting for a geographical government because you can just join Flote, or Gab, or Facehugger...er, Fakebook if you don't like Hive.
Hive didn't owe any of us airdrops, and however they determined how to airdrop tokens or not do so was entirely at their option. No one has to agree or disagree at all, and can just go about their lives utterly ignoring what Hive did completey unaffected.
You can't do that voting for Governor of Vermont. If you can't abide the majority decision, you either leave or rebel. You have to abide by the majority decision to continue to participate in the polity, and leaving the polity is a major upheaval of your life.
This difference is one of the greatest advances in human political technology that has ever been achieved IMHO. It will produce myriad blockchains, not one to rule all humanity. Government will forever be less oppressive in that world to come where one person living in a home can be part of a completely different polity than another living in the same home.
Truly voluntary government is in the offing, and no one has any right to airdrops from any of them, nor will be forced to participate in any of them. China's forced Social Credit system is the penultimate geographically based polity merely implemented online. It is not at all such a voluntary polity, and won't long exist IMHO, as preferable options arise in the future, and people unwilling to abide by that barbaric oppression will simply join competing polties they want to.
No one has to join Hive, or abide by it's policies.
I see HIVE as the continuation of Steem because of the extant blockchain circumstances that will only keep repeating until the problem gets solved permanently. You see it as a separate territory, and that's one way to look at it. However, the internet is infinite, and people are finite. If we keep rinsing and repeating this same mistake, over and over again, then the number of active users will become so minuscule that the project will lose its luster and become abandoned. Ultimately, people need to fix the failed model or lose faith in it, so they can create a better one before people give up on the blockchain social media concoction entirely.
I agree, all we did was slap a new logo on the same failed product.
I agree. I don't think we could survive as a community a second hard fork away from a solitary takeover, or our current oligarchy changing policies to allow more censorship. I find that prospect likely going forward, as political pressure is going to mount to censor the folks posting on Hive.
The oligarchy seems to be intent on income primarily, and nominal threats that could be brought to bear on them if they continue to resist censorship will probably work.
Why do you think that our current oligarchy changing policies to allow more censorship might be likely going forward? Is it because of the blockchain war, or people dual posting to both chains and those who oppose it?
Banksters are intent on achieving a global tyranny, and the pointy end of that assault is psychological manipulation. Factual information renders their propaganda weapon useless, so they are absolutely dependent on censorship, which Hive resists because the oligarchs govern it that way.
However, the primary interest of these oligarchs is personal aggrandizement, and the record of HF's, self-voting, circle jerks and the like clearly reveals this. This fact is easily ascertained and trivial to use to persuade the cabal governing Hive to support the imposition of the nascent global tyranny by threatening financial ruin.
Given the $T's being spent to censor the world and push the psyop that justifies the New World Order, as Hive stands out more and more as a vector for factual information the incentive to censor it increases as time goes on.
I don't think it will be long before we see the sudden imposition of censorship on Hive, or the replacement of extant oligarchs with Goldman Sachs sockpuppets a la Steem. In fact, I think Sun Yuchen's takeover of Steem was the initial attempt to do this, but the Hive oligarchs felt slighted and Hive exists because they weren't satisfied financially by Sun Yuchen's profits. They want to get paid to roll over.
Carrots and sticks, buyouts or concerted financial assaults on their assets, will quickly sort our covert owners into actual supporters of freedom and decentralization and greedy bastards. Since the record of their governance of the blockchain indicates they are the latter, I am pretty confident the rhetoric of decentralization will continue to spew from their lying mouths while they brutally censor anyone who speaks the truth, just as Sun Yuchen does on Steem today.
It's not a new model. They don't have to invent the wheel here. I can't count the number of examples in history where it has been implemented in the past. I can't count the successful examples of such covert leaders resisting that pressure to crush society either, because there just aren't any to count.
So, I reckon it's highly unlikely the decentralization rhetoric has any basis in actual fact, and their real motivations have been revealed by their actions to better profit from the blockchain during prior HF's.
Should be interesting to see how it all shakes
out. In part, it seems a bit like a distraction
from what's going on in the real world.
Good point.