RE: Should The Global Content Reward Pool Be Done Away With?

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

It's very possible that there would be more speculative buzz if that were the case. >"Demand for HIVE arising from such organic (non-speculative) demand is extremely far from affecting the price significantly, however."

I disagree: the value of a (social) network is measured among others by the number of its users.
What do you think where the value of facebook comes from - superior technology maybe? :)

This is crypto. The valuation of the HIVE token is between 99.9% and 95% speculative according to my quick calculators based on the number of monthly active users and potential earnings per monthly active user. Twitter is able to generate about $9 of earnings per monthly active user PER YEAR. Out of the mainstream platforms, Twitter is the best at generating ad revenue per monthly active user. Facebook makes about $7 per monthly active user per year. Assuming Hive was as good as Twitter at monetizing its user base, the token price would be about 1 cent.

Even if the monthly active user base of about 40,000 of Hive grew a hundredfold, even that wouldn't guarantee the current price absent speculation.

"If the curation rewards are cut in half, then there will be more vote selling, circle jerking and self-upvoting. Downvotes are so severely underutilized that I [...]"

No, we had that already. There is no reason why self-voting should be less lucrative when receiving more curation rewards for the self-votes.

Of course, it is because there is a certain amount of social pressure and risk of getting flagged against self-voting. The 50/50 split caused the balance shift towards less self-voting.

Bid bots/vote sellers can and would be controlled by flags.
Also the @haejin case is a good example which shows that coordinated flagging has a strong impact (especially since there are 'free' flags).

None of those factors alone did it. Many small-time vote farmers saw their gains cut substantially by the non-linear convergent curve.



0
0
0.000
3 comments
avatar
(Edited)

This is crypto.

So if HIVE price rises you will all say HIVE is so great, and the EIP does the job, but if it keeps falling that's because of speculation. :)

Of course, it is because there is a certain amount of social pressure and risk of getting flagged against self-voting.

The amount of "social pressure" didn't change with the change of the curation reward percentage.

None of those factors alone did it. Many small-time vote farmers saw their gains cut substantially by the non-linear convergent curve.

As you may have noticed, I am in favour of that curve.
Actually, it's convergent linear (not "non-linear convergent").

0
0
0.000
avatar

"This is crypto."

So if HIVE price rises you will all say HIVE is so great, and the EIP does the job, but if it keeps falling that's because of speculation. :)

Absolutely not. That's what you seem to be doing.

"Of course, it is because there is a certain amount of social pressure and risk of getting flagged against self-voting."

The pressure didn't change with the change of the curaation reward percentage.

Look, that pressure is a force against vote farming including self-voting, and the potential rewards are a force for vote farming. By weakening the latter, you shift the balance. I won't repeat this again as I'm hoping that I have finally managed to make the point successfully.

"None of those factors alone did it. Many small-time vote farmers saw their gains cut substantially by the non-linear convergent curve."

As you may have noticed, I am in favour of that curve.

Yes. Just saying that the three factors together did it.

This is starting to go in circles somewhat. :)

I would like to thank you for taking trouble of engaging in this exchange!

0
0
0.000
avatar

That's what you seem to be doing.

Where did I do that? I am observing the STEEM/HIVE price since years, for example compared to the price of BTC, that's completely different than considering short term speculations for my evaluations.

By weakening the latter, you shift the balance.

As I explained, 50 % curation rewards don't reduce the rewards for self-voting (it leads to less author but more curation rewards for the self-voter), and also not of vote farming with own alt accounts. It also doesn't changes the amount of social pressure on self-voters.
But of course you are free to disagree and keep your different opinion.

This is starting to go in circles somewhat. :)

Yes, right, we simply don't agree in some points.

I may write a post about my ideas concerning curation, so that more people are involved and can think about them.

Thanks for the tough discussion. :)

0
0
0.000