RE: Why Has Hive Not Achieved "Mass Adoption"?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The average social media user does not care about earning from social media use.
Yup, I make around 5 $ a day and spend like 2~3 hours on Hive posts. Or like 1/2 the hourly minimum wage in Korea and 1/3 the minimum wage in Canada. For some people, that's a good day's rate. But who can relate or more important wants to pay to consume content made by people who think 5$ a day is great? It sounds rough, but realistically, the typical content people with large disposable incomes consume are made by millionaires and the odd highly creative student just starting out, not people struggling to feed their families or scamming to make a few extra bucks.
The average social media user does not care about censorship resistance
Yup, those that do are very vocal about this. 99% of the internet is not censored anyway. The problem is everyone wants to say and do whatever they feel like it on a handful of websites that want to moderate. The people too extreme for social media come here and produce the same content that doesn't really attract consumers with disposable income...mostly because these types don't really want to put their credit cards on the internet anyway and that's how we make money.
I think it's pretty obvious that we should target early adopter types.
This is very true. We have been doing it, that's the problem. I think we need to re-think monetization and start burning a lot more Hive.
I'm not following. Is targeting early adopter types a problem or not?
What do you mean by burning HIVE?
The problem is despite targeting early adopters, we aren't getting enough on board. Do we want to promise them more riches or will we just promise them development....when SMT?
Burning Hive is the act of reducing the amount of inflation by sending it to null or simply not creating as much. This will get people interested as they realize they don't just need to keep pumping out trash to stay on top of things.
I can assure you that getting regular folks onboard is even more difficult at this stage of development. And I'm not so sure we have been targeting early adopter types very effectively. It seems to me that a lot of users have been trying to onboard friends and family and other people they know from real life without being too selective about who they're trying to onboard.
What we should tell early adopters is that Hive is an immature platform with interesting features. They should participate because with ongoing development there is a chance it could pan out in a big way.
I've heard suggestions to burn HIVE or to decrease the inflation before. HIVE is not a store of value coin nor will it ever become one. Why? Because it's not a Proof-of-Work coin with good decentralization and massive mining power securing it. HIVE is interesting because of the things you can do with it. The Graphene code base is optimized for high transaction volume. The number of consensus witnesses is only twenty and hard forks have been very frequent. If you could only hold it or gain rewards for staking it, HIVE would become just another PoS coin the likes of which there are hundreds on the markets. There would be no narrative. The project would completely lose its soul and reason for being. It would lose the social aspect of it which has served as an engine of decentralization through author and curation rewards. The community could never have been able to put up a fight against Justin Sun had it not already had time to decentralize owing to the distribution of coins based on participation in content creation and social activity on chain. And I'm not seeing a lot of trash getting high rewarded here. Actual trash gets downvoted to oblivion these days.
All that said, I think there should be an option for passive investors buy HIVE and get rewarded by earning through the same way lenders earn using the maker Maker protocol on Ethereum. Something like this should be replicated on Hive:
https://makerdao.com/en/
This would have the advantage of not forcing those people to power up to increase their stake.
Also, read the post by @edicted that I gave a link to in the post.
You are right about people mostly signing up their friends and family and others for seemingly odd purposes.
The reason I suggest burning Hive or as you suggest give more support to passive investors is to reduce the amount of utter nonsense posts made to simply skim rewards. I get the feeling that eliminating bid bots and discouraging vote trading was done too soon, let's face it most people are just making content simply for rewards and quality is lacking. We need another option until there are tons of high quality posts. Too many rewards going to junk.
I don't see a lot of rewards going to utter nonsense posts. I have no numbers, though, which is why I can't say for certain that this isn't the case. But I'm not even sure what you mean by such a post. I don't follow low-quality posters but when I go to a Community like Gems or Photography Lovers, I see a lot of not so great posts getting very little in the way of rewards.
Now I'm not following you. How would the nonsense post situation be better if the Economic Improvement Proposal causing the bid bot industry and vote trading to die hadn't been implemented last September? Before September 2019 a much larger proportion of the author reward pool was allocated in a completely content agnostic manner than now. I recall Trending being of much lower quality back then. When the free downvotes were introduced, I spent some time cleaning up Trending myself. The standards are much higher when it comes to the larger rewards than now.
I don't really know what you're talking about. Can you give me some examples to help me understand what you mean?
And even if it were the case that there is such a dearth of very good posts that a lot posts get rewarded too well, then shouldn't that make it easier for high-quality posts to reap the rewards?
I will repeat what I said earlier about introducing system like a Maker DAO on Hive to attract passive investment. That, and not killing inflation would work better in attracting passive investment, IMO.
We're still too centralized in terms of token distribution. There is no way other than inflation to improve it. Tokens need to end up in the hands of more holders.
Speculators do not mind annual inflation in the single digit percentages so long as the price swings are 100x as they have historically been. For them, the ability to time the market trumps any minuscule gains to be made by staking rewards.