Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)

in #hive-enginelast year (edited)

I started this post as a comment to @ura-soul’s post requesting clarification as to whether accounts upvoting his posts were auto-votes (because at least one of the whales downvoting his posts was claiming that as the reason). However, by the time I finished explaining my thoughts (in addition to directly answering his question), I realized that my explanation might be better served as a stand-alone post, so here it is.

Here was my response to @ura-soul regarding the ‘problem’ raised by his post (i.e. subjective downvotes):

The notion that a whale (or group of whales) would downvote your posts to zero because of presumed auto-voting is utterly ridiculous, imo (like this post, which generated tons of engagement, but was still DV'ed to zero).
Quite honestly, all this disgusts me.
However, despite my disagreement with those actions (and my disdain for those who promulgate them), I am resolved that the Layer 1 'feature' that allows such actions must remain (as a feature on Layer 1, that is), at least for now.
The downside to such behavior is that there is no way you can win against it (on Layer 1). As soon as one or more HIVE whales start DV'ing your posts, then it becomes costly for your supporters to continue upvoting you (because their curation rewards get zeroed out along with your author rewards).
So, there is an action by the DV'ers that costs them nothing, but costs you (in rewards that they claim were never really yours, which is technically true) but their actions also cost your supporters, and cost them curation rewards that REALLY WERE THEIRS (or at least should have been).
And, the DV'ers can continue this ad infinitum because it costs them nothing. The fact that it costs your supporters means many of them will stop upvoting your content (to stop incessantly losing their curation rewards). This is why such action is so disgusting to me -- it penalizes your supporters until they stop supporting you (or just keeps penalizing them, if they're stupid enough to continue throwing their curation rewards away).
I will be posting a more detailed explanation about my thoughts on this topic, and will link to that post here after it's published. (HINT: The answer to this problem resides on Layer 2, or at least it will shortly.)
In the meantime, I wish you the best in your fight against this abusive behavior; however, imho, you will be better off doing whatever you can to appease them rather than fight them or try to argue with them; they sincerely believe they are the 'righteous' ones. Nothing you or I say will convince them otherwise.

Below is my expanded commentary on the situation.

@dwinblood wrote an excellent post a while back explaining why DV'ing to zero anything other than plagiarism or fraud is malicious and that anyone who participates in such action has zero credibility (well, those are my words, not his -- read the post and comments to get his perspective).

My advice to those on the receiving end of subective DVs (such as @ura-soul) is to stop focusing your efforts primarily on Layer 1 and find some Layer 2 tribes to engage with (or create one of your own). Then encourage your followers to join you. Of course, they will, indirectly, if they comment on your posts and you upvote their comments -- they will get rewarded with the Layer 2 token(s).

I have been active within the proofofbrain tribe since its inception. It has its own subjective-DV problem (with at least one whale willing to DV posts to zero based on subjective disagreement). Although my attempts to change the ‘community rules’ to ban subjective downvoting was rejected (twice, actually), I will be launching a Layer 2 token in the coming weeks that will be complementary to POB, and will handle malicious behavior using the Layer 2 mute function rather than DVs. This will give folks a realm where the only action available to whales who dislike you is to ignore you.

However, it is important (for @ura-soul and others) to realize that Layer 2 (i.e. Hive-Engine) tribes and tokens are not at all decentralized, even if they claim to be. One hundred percent of the control over the issuance of the token, inflation rate, tribe-wide muting, etc. is at the mercy of the issuing account (see this excellent post by @themarkymark for more details about the risks involved).

Personally, I believe there will be a strong demand for the alternative I am about to launch. If I am wrong, though, I will rest easier knowing that I did my part to instantiate a potential solution rather than just complaining about the status quo.

In closing, I think it is important for folks to understand the fact that Layer 1 needs to be structured a certain way in order to ensure account-level censorship-resistance (i.e. when someone follows your account, they will forever and for always be able to view your posts, unless and until THEY or YOU choose to sever that connection). @theycallmedan did an excellent job here explaining why Layer 1 needs are inherently different from those of Layer 2, and why it is important not to confuse the two:

On a scaled layer 1 that is censorship resistant, you can then build layer 2 apps with various governance models. The key point is, on layer 2, you no longer need to worry about censorship resistance of the base layer, IE your metadata (account, community list, etc.) ... [because that feature is an integral part of Layer 1]

That is why there should NEVER be a Layer 1 system-wide mute function (analogous to the Layer 2 tribe-wide mute function). And, that is why DVs are a necessary feature for Layer 1 (unless and until a more creative way to combat plagiarism and similar forms of abuse is demonstrated, which will undoubtedly need to happen somewhere on Layer 2 first -- so that it gets tried and tested and pulled and stretched first).

So, with all that said, as much as the “subjective downvoting” @ura-soul and others have been complaining about disgusts me, the capability to do so is woven into the cloth of Layer 1 and cannot be removed (at this juncture) without damaging the cloth itself, which would not be in anyone's best interests.

This might be a hard pill to swallow, but it is what it is (for now, at least).

image source


I strongly believe one tweak would solve this. A free upvote to reverse downvotes. I talk about it here

I reversed some of the damage from ura-soul, but in doing so I also hurt my curation rewards. No big deal to me, but a big deal to plenty and enough to make it so most shy away and or can't do it on a consistent basis without diluting themselves in the long run. I will revisit this and try to push for a community vote on it.

Thanks for your support Dan, it is appreciated here. I just read and reblogged your post on downvotes and you make some interesting points. I know that @r0nd0n is moving to amplify the actions of @freezepeach in a way that is not dis-similar to your ideas, but having an inbuilt system function within a DAO along the lines you suggest would maybe be the best possible option. I think that maybe your free upvote suggestion might be made simpler by just reducing the amount of free downvotes that people have to 1 per day, though the comlexity of the various proposed options will no doubt yield outcomes that I am not able to predict in advance, so maybe your model would work better.

It's definitely sub optimal to expect large stakeholders to police the network and usually it isn't needed - but then it usually isn't the case that other large stakeholders attempt to use negative reinforcement to increase their curation payouts, rather than offering positive, creative additions to the community. While it is unpleasant to see this in action and particularly when it is done under the guise of being a 'service' to the community, at the same time it is inevitable that such exploits and barriers to sustainable growth will get exposed in systems over time. The key is to focus on the solutions rather than get caught up in constant battle.

As a long time system engineer and now digital marketer, I am a fan of iterative testing of ideas and A/B testing. These allow us to see without any doubt which ideas/designs work best to achieve performance goals. Layer 2 solutions offer a definite way to test out a wide variety of ideas and I have advocated for this since the days of the mythical SMTs on Steem. We have never quite gotten there though and the high cost to entry for Layer 2 sites on Hive currently is significantly holding this process back.

If layer 2 solutions become cheap enough to enable rapid development and testing of new ideas then I think we will see these wider systemic problems resolved quickly too. In the absence of that, I would suggest being open to testing variations on downvoting via future Hard Forks, such as reducing the amount of free ones available and/or the DAO idea you mentioned.


Thanks for the mention. We are indeed working on a solution, which is the culmination of trial and error over these past few years. Allowing stakeholders to act in accord to with other like minded stakeholders to take the wind out of the sails with regards to politically motivated downvoters. No flag wars, no drama, just positive interaction to curb and perhaps eliminate the behavior entirely.

make similar to, with a 'tribunal' ? - if accounts are found to be dv at an unfair consistency, 'we the people' nuke them out of existence?

i dunno... im a bit of a shitposter, but ive never incurred a 'hater' apart from when scammo had his legion of trailvotes on me.

i try to vary my posts around, but i ... i think i burned out at the beginning with 5000 word $0.03c posts noone read / replied to - my thing is 'bounce' - i ... i cant even word it..... probably need to sleep (4:30am-ish, with 3 hrs sleep since 5pm 2 days ago )
i started with on point, then digressed infinitely XD

but thats why u guys love (hate is still love ) me though, right?

Ah, yes. I had not seen that before. Thanks for sharing!

I was getting ready to publish a post explaining how the only way to effectively counter subjective downvotes is to fight DVs with DVs; and then recommending against doing so, because it would ultimately hurt much more than it helps, due to all the collateral damage associated with every DV (i.e. DVs reduce or eliminate curation rewards from those who cast upvotes in good faith). Not to mention the fact that creating a DV warzone would be a really bad look for the platform.

Your proposed solution enables a counter that should be effective (or at least partially effective, depending upon the relative stakes of all involved) but without the collateral damage.

One potential problem I see with that solution involves timing. A malicious downvoter can time their downvote to occur just prior to payout, thus eliminating the opportunity for 'free upvotes' to counter the downvote. So, maybe free upvotes should be allowed up to 24 hours after the normal voting window closes.

Yes we would need to have a cutoff in place. After the final downvote is cast only the count upvote can be used for x time until finished. I'm sure there are so little holes in there to exploit but I like the overall idea.

I'm sure there are so little holes in there to exploit but I like the overall idea.

It is one of the best ideas I've heard, to date, in terms of constructively dealing with Layer 1 subjective DVs. Regarding smooth's concern about someone splitting their stake to allow themselves the ability to counter downvotes against themselves, the fact that they have to split their stake means their ability to 'maliciously upvote' is cut in half, because if they use both accounts to upvote a single post, then they lose their ability to counter any downvote(s).

Although I don't know all the history, it seems a fair bit of the 'subjective downvoting' going on is focused on haejin and punishing him for past sins. If that is the case, then I would argue that enacting or keeping systemwide policies aimed primarily at punishing a single individual actually gives that individual far more control (over the platform) than is likely warranted. Just my $0.02 regarding something about which I am not fully informed -- so maybe that perspective is worth a proverbial grain of salt ...

does pulling ones upvote then 'zero-sum'

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.

If someone revises their upvote, then the original upvote is removed and the new upvote value is applied.

For instance, if I upvote 100% then later change it to 0%, the author gets nothing and I get nothing. However, I do not get my upvote manna back, so zeroing out my upvote takes those author rewards away from the author and also takes those curation rewards away from myself.

I believe u understood quite well, even if I was sleep deprived rambling and couldn't fully form coherence.

Ty, answered well.

What we need to fix these issues is Bottom Up, Multilevel, Anonymous Concentrated Community Wide Consensus, (with proof of person and Trusted Reputation score , lukely weighting the votes to some extent to eliminate effect of double voting by alt accounts). #matrix8fixesthis

More info here

Sat Nam


Sent 0.1 PGM tokens to, @jelly13

remaining commands 8

Buy and stake 10 PGM token to send 0.1 PGM per day,
100 PGM token to send 0.1 PGM three times per day
500 to send and receive 0.1 PGM five times per day
1000 to send and receive 0.1 PGM ten times per day

Discord image.png gave you LUV. H-E tools | connect | <><

 last year  Reveal Comment

Well yes, and i am talking about a new design.

On that same post I pointed out how the "free upvote" is basically just a nerf to downvotes (those getting downvoted, whether justified or not, can use the "free upvote" as a sort of shield, which can be harmful as often as helpful). While that would help with "bad" downvotes, it would also hurt the value of "good" downvotes. I'm far from convinced it really helps overall, and could very well make matters worse overall.

At some point, people have to just accept the fact that voted rewards are a sort of consensus-finding process, and if enough people/stake don't agree that the rewards should be paid to someone or some content, for whatever subjective reasons, that isn't consensus, and the rewards won't be paid (or less will be paid). The total amount of rewards, system-wide, will still be paid, they'll just go somewhere else, somewhere less contentious and more aligned with consensus. One poster's loss is always other posters' gain. It is a zero-sum game in a short-term sense, and inherent in that is that not everyone can win.

Absolutely! We, the consumer are at liberty to consume.

That said I worry about the volume of non-sense that often get rewarded by massive upvote. Not only it makes us look bad (like a conspiracy platform full of shady people), but also most of these folks sell their rewards immediately and therefore are a drain in the system. I don't even feel they believe in the "snake oil" they are peddling, smooth, they do it because it pays handsomely!

You mean, "viral Hive content" that gains no traction outside of a small handful of people on this platform?

Gosh, I would rather @pressfortruth gain more recognition than the stuff posted around here.

Yes “viral hive content” :)

What I'm missing the most in this subject is clear, visible ratio earned HP/powered down HP. This would be a great suggestion for distribution of upvotes for stakeholders.

I can request @dalz for this data. He usually loves this.

hearing that... i love 'the work' - i just dont have anyone requesting of me, and the stuff ppl want is generally as simple as a slice of code ( i say slice, but that could be 3000 lines long ) as opposed to actual sleuthing, etc XD

 last year (edited) 

For a certain list of users yes, say the top 1000, but not for all of them :)

Yes, especialy those who publishes (authors) and get author rewards. Top 1000 will be fine. May be even top 500 (or even top 100!) will be okay, but can we separate them into communities? I am particularly interested in:

  • Proof of Brain
  • Covid19
  • Deep Dives
  • Informationwar
  • Threespeak
  • News&Views
  • Leofinance

Some of them are just communities/tags while others like POB and LEO have their native L2 token (so they need to be added somehow with the hive rewards).

Powered-up invested funds should be counted somehow, too. But seeing this in post for a week is one thing, and integrating it into frontends by default is another. From the single post perspective the most valuable data would be the biggest drains, meaning accounts who powered-down the most of the money earned by posting.

I'll write the entire post regarding this idea and more, it's bouncing in my mind for last weeks.

I liked the suggestion you made to my original idea on this point. "I think it would be possible to take the downvote curation reward penalty only from those upvotes chronologically before the downvote, so upvotes to counter the downvote wouldn't be penalized."

Not sure exactly how we get there, but my point remains. If you get diluted by taking action, very few, if any, will take that action. It helped a lot with DVs. While I agree we need more healthy DVs on the most post, it's rare to get a post on web2 without a downvote. It's just people need to adjust the downvote size, or it causes harm. No need to zero out a post from someone legit every time they post to the chain. So it would be nice to find a way not to be diluted when trying to find equilibrium with the token distribution.

I saw a comment here I forgot who from about a possible inflation reward pool for DVs. Meaning if you don't use the DVs, you miss out on rewards. I believe nudging good people to use downvotes will be very healthy. It's ok to do a small/normal size downvote in relation to the post rewards if you disagree. And if we had a more balanced healthy DV system, we would see much more competition for the rewards. Obv this would also help "bad" downvoters, so my point above remains. Maybe a mix of both, one to encourage healthy DVs and one to help counter overhanded ones.

Downvotes spread more widely would indeed help with some cases, since then getting downvotes would not be so devastating to rewards (most content would have some so the zero-sum aspect would mean it would tend to balance out some).

Though it still wouldn't help with these "downvoted to zero" situations. Again, people have to accept that in a voted-reward system, highly controversial content with a lot of disagreement won't do well on rewards. We don't (for the most part, though front ends do hard block child porn, etc.) censor it, but we won't reward it either.

Layer two where a narrower subcommunity (i.e. with less disagreement on some things) can decide differently about what it wants to reward is probably the best solution.

Imagine an economy where you had the option to EITHER give performers a tip OR take a tip from a performer.

Now imagine that when you take a tip from a performer, they're tip gets "redistributed" to the remaining performers, with the largest share going to the performers who earn the most tips.

Small performers will be heckled because there is no fear of retaliation.

Large performers will always reap the majority of the rewards kicked out of the hats of the smaller performers.

In the end, you're simply reinforcing an anti-competitive environment where the big fish use their position to only allow performances they personally approve of.

Sure, there may be some legitimately "bad actors" - but even they deserve some pretense of a FAIR public trial and some reasonable path to redemption.

Secret DISCORD kangaroo courts do not meet this standard.

A free upvote to reverse downvotes.

There is a free upvote service from @droida at, but I highly doubt that it could reverse the downvote of a whale, let alone a group of whales. At least currently. This project should get much more support from the community. There should be strong co-operation to reverse downvotes.

Thank you for the mention.

Thank you for supporting the community. I wish you all the best with the project and with everything else. Have a nice day. Greetings from Hungary.

I appreciate Dan for doing that. Many moons ago Dan you published a video and I remember it quite well. I can't quote 100% from memory but it was something like below:

if you like something upvote, if you don't like something downvote, its not personal

Somewhere along the line people forgot this simple fact, that when we publish a post, we have no control on voting. People may upvote or downvote. If it is an honest post, it shouldn't matter to the author. As the way hive is designed it is immutable.

Therefore, the only thing remains is the reward. As per hive (and original steem whitepaper) the author only gets the reward on the 7 day at payout, before that the reward belongs to the reward pool. Many people have hard time understanding this simple fact.

All these discussion is leading to if we want rewards at all on the Layer 1. More and more I am geting inclined to that we do not. Layer 1 can just be for the stakeholders we move the author rewards to Layer 2. Which is basically the main content of this post.

Problem with removing voting rewards, I don't even like calling them that; I call it token distribution of the base layer governance system. We are on a coin voting platform. The inflation is lowering every block until it'll be sub 1%. 1% inflation is very very small, but will still play some role in further decentralizing governance. If we make the mistake of allowing only one group of people IE Miners, Dao contractors, or whomever, we could fall into centralization before we know it. I know some will say some people just power down and sell, but id always wager and say we have some very, very long term outstanding hivers who earned a lot through creating content and being active. For every 1 loyal hiver PoB has created, I'd trade you a dozen short-term dumpers. As inflation lowers, the dumping will have little to no impact on price, but the loyal hivers we helped mold in the early days will continue to shape hive well into the future.

For every 1 loyal hiver PoB has created, I'd trade you a dozen short-term dumpers.

Agree! For the last 3 years I haven’t sold a single hive, bought some. Moved into SL. You did the same. All your hive are bought from the market.

So we agree.

Redistribution is a hard concept for people to understand Dan. That’s the issue we are facing.

we could fall into centralization before we know it.


"Could fall into"... This platform has always been centralized, and will never stop being centralized. The dPoS system guarantees that - never mind the old Ninja Mine and all the other BS.

Good point.

However, the prospect of a witness reshuffle apparently struck a nerve.

Do you support the principle of free-speech and the right to a fair-and-public-trial ?

The only way to change the witnesses would be to change the stake-holders, which would mean someone has to put a LOT of money into Hive, to try to change things.

Anyone with the kind of funds to get stake like that, I would definitely recommend putting it into something besides Hive. Don't try to take a system designed for 1 thing (maintaining whale stake) and use it for something else... just build something else instead.

I support the idea of Free Speech, because it falls under the category of You can do whatever you want as long as you are not threatening, harming, or defrauding another.

A "fair & public trial" is definitely not something that I support. The whole idea of punitive justice exists only to serve the state, and those who control the state. In actual conflict resolution, things like a "trial" have no place.

All these discussion is leading to if we want rewards at all on the Layer 1. More and more I am geting inclined to that we do not. Layer 1 can just be for the stakeholders we move the author rewards to Layer 2. Which is basically the main content of this post.

That is certainly an alternative that merits discussion.

I have often felt that the current model is not very investor-centric. I don't know of many investors who would want to bother with 'curating' in order to maximize their investment.

With that said, Hive's value proposition is far deeper than social media. Keeping social media rewards as a Layer 1 feature need not be a sacred cow, imho. However, I don't see any immediate advantages to eliminating social media rewards from Layer 1, and there would definitely be disruptions associated with doing so -- and thus unforeseeable unintended consequences.

A middle-of-the-road solution might be to enable stakeholders to 'delegate' a portion of their HP to a special account that continually self-votes half its HP (i.e. allows its voting manna to exceed 100% exactly half the time), then returns 100% of those rewards to the delegators. Basically, that allows investors to choose whether they want to curate or whether they just want to bank their would-be curation rewards, without hassling with curating (and they can choose how much of their stake they want to apportion each way, and can change that percentage from time to time).

The advantage would be that the reward pool will be larger (because the special account only votes half the time) and there would be much fewer autovoters muddying up manual curation efforts.

A middle-of-the-road solution might be to enable stakeholders to 'delegate' a portion of their HP to a special account that continually self-votes half its HP

Sounds complex, and I am sure it goes against the core hive values. But it is a possible discussion point.

Are you attending hive fest?

Do you know the core members? Might be a good idea to get to know some of them during the hive fest.

Are you attending hive fest?

I would like to, but I will be traveling during most of it.

Hopefully I can attend some parts, even if it's hit and miss.


there is no binding contract between the founders/operators of this blockchain and the individual users.

Everyone is liable for their own content, as happens, for example, with the use of images and texts that someone publishes as the author. You are relying on statements made by individuals or on a paper that is considered a guideline but does not call itself a law, which the operators (or witnesses) would take legal action if it were disregarded. Basically, they have no authority to do so, as they are exempt from such obligations. You don't have a clear situation here, even though you might prefer that.

Since the nature of blockchain in relation to blogging is something entirely different and still new (compared to private blogs or other media channels where there are clear payment modalities), I think it is understandable that someone would not consider their post as a "draft" but as a finished result. Understanding the seven days as a "holding pattern" is quite a lot to ask, when opinions and reactions to a publication can and do arrive from minute one. (Also, marketing differs).

In principle, it would be wiser not to vote or comment on a contribution as soon as it is published, but only towards the end, in case the author still makes changes. But since the function exists from the moment of publication (including monetary incentives), most people consider their own post and the posts of others as "completed" and I don't know anyone who seriously changes their own piece so much that it would take up, for example, a change percentage of over 20 percent. I think, this contradicts your statement somewhat about the 7 days. I find it anything than simple.

I don't know what difference you make between authors and stakeholders. Everyone is a stakeholder, including authors. What makes you think they don't have a stake? Once you collect value in your wallet, you are already a stakeholder, aren't you? The moment you theoretically put yourself in a position to trade cryptos, you are a holder of cryptocurrency. So I would like you to explain what you mean by this statement? Are you referring to the operators of the servers, the determiners of the content regarding the hard forks, the so-called witnesses? Who exactly do you mean by stakeholders?

Thank you.

Posted via

there is no binding contract between the founders/operators of this blockchain and the individual users

You are absolutely correct. This is exactly what I am saying.

Since no such contract exits and never will. Consumers does not have any loyalty to the author/creators either. We can chose to vote what we like and how we like it.

I don't know what difference you make between authors and stakeholders

Everyone is a stakeholder. The difference is, how much stake is necessary to have a meaningful opinion in governance. Again the answer is subjective. There is no real number and its a sliding scale. I have seen people taking meaningful part in governance with 100K HP, and I have seen people taking no role in governance with 12M HP. But usually since this is a DPOS blockchain it is widely considered proportional to your powered up hive.

You can have a better understanding if you read the whitepaper.

What do you mean by "meaningful"?

In the context of numbers, i.e. the level of stakes, I can't derive meaningfulness. It's communicated content that provides meaning and in principle does not need a stake to motivate someone to make a suggestion or participate in the design of the platform.

But how I understand you, in other words, the higher your stake, the more weight and importance your word should have. Am I understanding you correctly? If someone with 12 M HP decides not to assert a will to shape, they could still do so at any time and have an influence. Whereas, on the other hand, if someone has far less than 100K HP, it makes no difference if they want to influence, right?

If no one has loyalty to each other, the whole thing here would be nothing more than a kind of gambling, where you just bet your chips on a whim, no matter what content you are playing with. No matter what authors write, it is not important what they write, but only that they write so that the game continues.

But I see something different. Loyalty and the formation of communities of interest are taken very seriously here, just as certain behaviour is either rewarded or punished.

The - one might say foolish - side that sees it all as great fun is not seen as funny at all, and the people who very seriously monitor behaviors and opinions seem to want to prevent the very face of Hive shown on the outside from being perceived as a gambling hall and a place of arbitrariness.

In my view, this contradicts the "we can choose what we want and how we want it." There are hundreds of etiquette posts, advice articles on voting and commenting behaviour, and a constant argument about these matters.

If it is as you say, no one would really want to spread the word that this is decentralised governance. Because of course that is not true. For me personally, I clarified the whole matter a few years ago with one of the witnesses here, who finally said that it is anything but decentralised. Basically, the marketers say something different than what's in it.

In principle, this is what could be written on the packaging:

Nobody takes seriously what is published here. It is a matter of complete arbitrariness. The rewards are neither rewards, the punishments neither punishments. No one wants to help anyone succeed, because the individual's personal blog is merely a pass-through for number shifts. All that is experienced in terms of meaning is a charge of meaning that is in truth unimportant.

I've read the paper several times back then and I bet, very few people read it. For me, that's subjective, it's not a law, it's an approach how one can look at this matter.

But do you really think, that is how the people here perceive this environment? I don't think so. Up- or Downvoting is connected to emotions drawn from the contents being published. If it'd be totally un-attached to emotion, there would be no need for either up- or downvotes.

Try not to write wall of text.

  • Think through
  • Summarize in bullet
  • Two-three bullets enough

I can give you a simple rule of thumb. Purchase 100K-500K hive from the market and power up. You will see that you are participating in governance. If you can't, then don't worry about upvote or downvote. Live your life and enjoy.

Have a good day

Interesting, you want me to rethink my answer. I think it's fine as it stands.
There's always the possibility that someone else won't mind the length, it's public here. If it doesn't meet interest, I can live with it.

Purchase 100K-500K hive from the market and power up. You will see that you are participating in governance.

I already confirmed that this seems to be the state of the art. In case, you nevertheless read what I answered.

Basically, I don't take a position that is fixed in principle, it varies depending on the situation/topic and who I meet. If I ride on principles, I may ride them to shame.

You too, have a good day.

There it is folks! Plain for all to see! Your words don’t matter unless you have a higher stake than the arbitrators giving their thumbs up and thumbs down in the coliseum of content that we all call Hive. Thus… the perpetration of literal “Hive Mind” and the manifestation of abuse across the blockchain. THIS is where the problem originates… and THIS is why we are NOT A TOP 10 COIN. [period]

The rewards are neither rewards, the punishments neither punishments. No one wants to help anyone succeed, because the individual's personal blog is merely a pass-through for number shifts. All that is experienced in terms of meaning is a charge of meaning that is in truth unimportant.


Basically, they have no authority to do so, as they are exempt from such obligations.

Great point.

Or maybe just cut the FREE downvotes in half.

That way, if people have equal stake, it takes TWO people downvoting in order to ZERO them out.

Isn't the whole theory of downvoting supposed to be some sort of "community consensus" anyway ?

This is interesting and something I've not thought of. Giving a DV mana pool a divy of inflation, and it acts the same as UV in terms up earning rewards for using it. Few things pop into my head ill need to give it a deeper think.

Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.

No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.

Very interesting.
Yes, should be possible: first calculate the amount every curator had become, and then add/subtract the same percentage to/from everybody which you need to add/subtract that author and curators receive altogether the same amount.

I do NOT want author and curators to receive the same amount.

That's why I thought you would mean or at least consider it:

Although I suppose you can always take out the same amount off the pool for both and then return the excess from the author side (generated by DVs) even without skewing the 50/50 split.

Aber Englisch ist nicht meine Muttersprache.
Wie dem auch sei, den Autorenreward von der Anzahl der Votes abhängig zu machen und den Curationreward vom 'Votegewicht' des Votenden, ist eine sehr interessante Idee.

It totally opens fun stuff like people parking their DVs on their alts or even self-DVing

Haha have a reverse burn post. Everyone park their downvotes there and create the most negative rep account there is.

The reversing/countering initiatives are going to run in circles indefinately. The reason behind it is the difference in the UV architecture vs DV architecture. While I consider "normalising DVs" the correct approach, you cannot find balance until there is a financial incentive to use DVs.

If DV mana produced rewards (making it unprofitable to sit at 100% just like current UV mana) the principal difference gets removed and the system gets more stable.

My best pitch would be to distribute author rewards based on sum of the votes while distributing curator rewards based on sum of absolute values of the votes (in non-math language: let's curation-reward a 0.1 DV the same as we curation-reward a 0.1 UV).

I could have made a post discussing the weak spots of the new system already but I would have got zero for my work and very few people would have seen it on their Hive frontend. So I have decided not to make it.

Just cut the FREE downvotes in half.

No need to give more FREE upvotes to counter the FREE downvotes.

In the original system, your UPVOTE bar could be used up by UPVOTING (OR) by DOWNVOTING.

You could choose to DOWNVOTE but that would reduce your total available UPVOTE.

After HF21, a FREE DOWNVOTE bar was added, so you could DOWNVOTE with NO PENALTY.

Thanks for your comments. As a professional systems engineer for over 20 years and having been witness to censorship of social media before Facebook even existed, I have been focused onto this topic since the beginning. I received death threats for sharing scientific papers that exposed the flaws in the mainstream vaccine narrative years before COVID19 and have fully expected what is happening on Hive today - I just didn't know exactly how it would manifest or through which people.

I have been working with others on a layer 2 solution to this problem for a while, but unfortunately it is on pause due to a personal issue with a key team member. Anyone creating a layer 2 solution needs to, most likely, air drop the tokens to the community in order to ensure both decentralisation and avoidance of security regulations in the US. It is wise to avoid air dropping tokens to those who are known to censor arbitrarily and since it is quite possible that earning from activity on Hive might predominately occur through layer 2 in future, it is extremely short sighted of the censors to take action now that will result in them being omitted from key air drops in future. No-one ever said censors were smart thinkers and actually, throughout history, they are ALWAYS shown to be on the wrong side of ethics and morality - leading to their ultimate demise long term.

I am more than happy to work on any layer 2 solutions that show promise. I participated in the proofofbrain tribe for a while but their site is down, was never developed and apparently the creator is gone (I don't know who that was). I looked into launching a layer 2 project via Hive Engine, but the cost is a bit high for me at present and ultimately it is a somewhat centralised system too. I look forward to the SPK network's solutions soon and also your own project - let me know if you want any help, I'm happy to provide feedback or professional services if needed.

Bring on the day that you can use open source content gateways and content policies to craft your own front end experience which is virtually I influenced by the hive trending algorithm. This issue will be solved by multiple front ends running multiple content gateways, content policies and different trending algos. It’s coming. There is little that can be done to stop it. Just patience required

id love to see 'trending' about the vote count , as opposedto 'who has the biggest bags'

This is a fantastic post and I don't think when DV's were established it took into consideration early investors, Hive Influencers and the disparity between bloggers.

Fortunately this is a Delegated Proof Of Stake chain with elected representatives looks like @theycallmedan is onto it which is great. I will note that alot of whales do get down voted it's just that the DVs don't have the same weight.

But what we don't want happening is a Tit for tat exchange and I personally don't like the position of "don't like it down vote" because this is often misused as personal attacks. The amount of actual flat earthe content, fake news and deluded musings that are profitable are not being downvoted. Noting I don't down vote that stuff either (each to their own)

But there needs to be a mechanism that prevents or at least limits bad behaviour.

And that is upto the witnesses to lead.

Great post!

I often shy away from matters regarding downvotes because they can be quite controversial and also can earn you a place in some people's bad books (which is not so much of a problem to me these days).

Downvotes are necessary, even on layer 2. We cannot ignore that people exploit the loopholes in the reward system and sometimes it is not intentional in the case where one is been autovoted, which in my opinion isn't a bad thing per see. We have so demonized autovotes and failed to see its value.

There is a lot to curating than just rewarding quality posts which is subjective. For instance, I am aware of a newbie initiative that is structured to help committed newbies grow their accounts faster. The upvote on their content isn't based on its quality but more on their effort and commitment to the chain.

People reward content, personality, relationships, etc This is a social norm even on a decentralised social platform

As I have said in the past, what makes a post rewardable is the value it adds to others, and value in itself is subject. So the best thing to do would be to let people decide through upvotes and downvotes. However, the power structure on layer 1 doesn't make this a fair game--it has never been.

Layer 2 solutions seem to be the preferred option for many people, but it does have its cons.

In a nutshell, I don't think the system is structured to be fair. If it was, we will all have equal stake and votes, which isn't even ideal. So that's the dilemma.

Layer 2 is more flexible.

You actually don't have to downvote to remove rewards because tribe leaders can mute individual posts and deny rewards to individuals, depending on your set up.

It's less messy. And in that regards, downvotes becomes optional or even purely for reward disagreement.

Should I say that the decentralized systems are also centralized. Governed by a few. The whales are mighty after all. They can give and snatch as per their desires. They have the power to threat and they potentially do and ultimately can achieve their desirable outcomes.

I heard someone saying, "There is no law without a flaw." That's the fact, ha. To overcome that flaw there is a need of ethical and moral building that is something that never accomplishes fully.

I have never been in favor of subjective downvoting. There should be some objective standards for it like plagiarism or clear spamming, or any standard already specified by the platforms or communities.

Layer 2 has its own risks as you stated. It is not a reliable method of gaining the desirable outcome. I don't really know what technically should be, but the problem be solved at layer one.

It ain't over baby!!

A couple months ago some people laughed suggested going over to Blurt. It's not a laughing matter anymore. What is this place without freedom of speech? Blind downvoting ain't the way you do it. A funny way to show they care.

' better think it over baby.

Since I have no bourbon. I've got to send you burgundy !WINE to go with these goats and some !LUV.

Something you just said triggered me in a good way... perhaps the key word is "blindly". If a downvote is cast without opening the content (auto down voting), it seems to be malicious. Perhaps auto downvoting could be curbed and a requirement to open the article to downvote would solve the issue... making it a manual process, though, I suppose you could teach a machine to mimic an opening of an article and downvote... just thinking in type...

weedcash front end has this i believe ( not so much the automation of process, but u cant just 'trail' ( or at least it didnt look like it moons ago when i was looking at it)

Congratulations, @mineopoly You Successfully Shared 0.100 WINEX With @trostparadox.
You Earned 0.100 WINEX As Curation Reward.
You Utilized 1/1 Successful Calls.


Contact Us : WINEX Token Discord Channel
WINEX Current Market Price : 0.400






@trostparadox, you've been given LUV from @mineopoly.

Check the LUV in your H-E wallet. (1/5)

I am practically not really knowledgeable about anything but I have a simple question?

Is it possible for the downvote system to change the post rewards to 100% curation back to the authors who voted it while the publisher don’t get any author rewards since his post is being downvoted.

That way, those who voted the post are not penalized for doing so. What do you think?

Great anylisis and have missed your posts! I agree and also wanted to add the only real ways for a newbie to build stake is to focus on a tribe that interests them and grow within it.

Have I missed a blog on this new token your launching or is it still to come? Either ways have some swap.busd ready to go to launch in.







@trostparadox, you've been given LUV from @failingforwards.

Check the LUV in your H-E wallet. (1/3)

Rather new on the hive, what's the difference between layer 1 and layer 2?

Layer 1 is the base blockchain (i.e. "Hive"). All posts and comments reside on Layer 1, along with all account-level transactions (e.g. who follows whom).

However, there is currently another blockchain that runs parallel to Layer 1, called Hive-Engine. It is a 'Layer 2' blockchain. Other Layer 2 blockchains are under development. At present, though, Hive-Engine is the only Layer 2 chain.

Layer 1 tokens include HIVE (which can be staked as HIVE Power) and HBD. Layer 1 rewards are issued as some combination of HIVE, HP, and HBD.

Layer 2 tokens (also called H-E tokens, short for Hive-Engine tokens), include everything else (go here to see a list of them), such as LEO, POB, DEC, SPS, BEE, APE, etc. You post 'on Layer 2' whenever you use certain tags, such as leofinance and proofofbrain, but those tags just tell Hive-Engine to reward the post with Layer 2 tokens in addition to Layer 1 tokens.

Also, a single post (and all its related comments) can earn multiple Layer 2 tokens at the same time (depending on which tags were included in the original post). For example, this post (and all comments and sub-comments) is earning POB, BEE, PAL, NEOXAG, and ARCHON.

So, if you join a Layer 2 community (also called a 'tribe') and everyone in that tribe only owns the Layer 2 token associated with that tribe, and no one who owns HIVE (or HP) ever votes for any of the posts associated with that tribe, then although the posts reside on Layer 1, there are no Layer 1 rewards being issued to the author of that post, or to its curators, or to any commenters. In that sense, the Layer 2 tribe can essentially operate in complete oblivion to Layer 1. In fact, the Layer 2 tribe could even have its own login system such that Layer 2 tribe members might not even know that they are posting to Hive. LeoFinance has an onboarding feature like that. You could conceivably join LeoFinance (using their Twitter onboarding process) and post and interact without ever realizing you are actually doing so 'on Hive'.

@trostparadox thanks for educating i understand how layer 1 and layer 2 works ...i am looking forward to your layer 2 community that you want to create.. ..

Posted via

layer one is Hive, layer two are community tokens

And I’ll just jump in here. Layer 0 is the community that makes this a social blockchain. Speaking of which! It’s always good to see new people here on the blockchain! Welcome and thank you for asking this question. I think there could be lots of other people wondering the same things you are. 👍

Keeping asking the questions and commenting. Your on the right track! 🙂

If you do start a new layer 2 hive group let me know.

Will do.

Whew! Lot of info in one post. So filled right now.

@scholaris, Word of the week announcement post brought me here.

Also, the upvotes I have been receiving from you on my entries.

Thanks @trostparadox.

Looking forward to Layer 2😊

Posted via

Now that my posts are all being downvoted to zero on Hive, I'm Looking foward to seeing your new layer two option.

I'm totally over all downvoting, which has ramped up greatly in the past two months.

Some people think the insiders want to drive content creators off layer one - they certainly appear to be working towards that.

A whale told me to go to blurt if I don't like downvoting - that is looking like a more solid option by the day...

And so is Bastyon

 last year (edited) 

No, I can't... but in a vague sense, it just doesn't seem set up to shadow ban a user - it would be more effort than it's worth.
Bastyon's biggest selling point is the encrypted chat - it's getting thousands of new accounts because of that.
I wasn't all that impressed with Pocketnet two years ago, but now it seems to be on the brink of going big. Rebranded, and going with encryption and no censorship, it's ready at the right time.

Blurt - I laughed at first as well - terrible name, and it got off to a slow start. But Hive is a terrible name too (hive mind), and Blurt is a real underdog. All it would take is a dozen big name Hive bloggers to move there and it could suddenly become hip. Bastyon is very different, but Blurt is basically Steemit without whales.

So if my days on Hive are pretty much over, I have three options - Bastyon, Blurt, or a new Hive based front end that's in the works. One way or another I want no downvoting. At this point I'm open minded, and waiting to see how things play out. I've met some amazing people on Hive and if we are going to be forced off the Hive platform, I want to keep my contacts in one place

Hadn't heard of bastyon. I like Hive for dlease. I'm using Hive to feed steem purchases because steem leasing is over 30%while hive is at 12%. Will blurt have a dlease option?




Also @trostparadox at this point this post is showing $196

And a large part of this post are comments from another post by another individual.

My direct question to you is this:

Do you feel this post is over-rewarded at this point? Do you feel this is more rewarded than an average original post on hive?

I feel this post is well-rewarded given the professionalism and information on governance that is presented. When you include the engagement for this post, I think it's under-rewarded. It gets very tiring reading emotional rants about voting and the influence these types of posts can garner. I feel like I've lost months of work from only a couple of tirades.

The engagement alone is worth the value and serves as a basis for how people should communicate. I mean, how many articles are there that just discusses the system and its rules with the likes of yourself, trost, dan, and anyone else who wishes to discuss their views on the matter. There's no animosity, just a discussion of what is and the plans of what could be.

This is the kind of example of an article/engagement I'll be passing on to newcomers for recommended reading.

Posted via

I agree. You can read my conversation with the author.

Why are still complaining about your reputation?
You are not "shadow-banned", your thoughts are written in the chain, just your reputation is down.
You started your crusade or your social experiment -as you called it- with some bloggers mainly from the D-A-CH- area, you were insulting people from other countries, which are writing posts in a language you dont speak as far as i know, you were telling stupid conspiracy bullshit and you made wrong accusations about the "most toxic"-as you called it- community from switzerland, austria and germany, you still give constantly downvotes without any discussions due to your personal blacklist and you were ignoring a lot of peace offers.
So, i asked you many times, whats wrong with you?
Think you would like to you see in a role as a poor shadow banned victim on a crusade, but you are no victim, you are the actor in this game.
Eyerybody, who wants, can check this out.
Best regards.

100%. It has become tiring and it also has distracted many from what could be. Hive talking about Hive shows that we are not yet mature and these could be considered growing pains. We have not arrived yet and have a long way to go to innovate Hive to where it should be. A top 10 coin. The longer we take to establish social norms with actual code… the worse off this blockchain and it’s community becomes. Every one of us has made a decision to trade our perfectly good Bitcoin for Hive. We have done so with the expectation that Hive (in the long run) will be something the world needs just as much as the Bitcoin we traded it for. But I have a feeling missing another Bitcoin bull run is going to reduce our numbers significantly… and right now it’s all hands on deck so how we treat our own does matter.

This is a post that’s extremely valuable… and unfortunately so. The sooner we switch from talking about Hive to using Hive to talk about what people care about (more widely) the sooner Hive will reach mass adoption and become what it could be.

Before that can happen… the DV and it’s current use needs thought and innovation.

Thank you for your comment.


And a large part of this post are comments from another post by another individual.

That is incorrect. 95% of the quoted text was my own, from this comment, which currently has $0.58 in pending rewards.

Do you feel this post is over-rewarded at this point?

This question should be directed at those who voted for it. They are the ones assigning value. However, from a market-based perspective, assuming free will and free exchange (as in, as long as those who voted for it were not somehow coerced or duped into doing so), then I would unequivocally say, "No." Three-hundred-plus individual minds have each assigned their own independent value.

Do you feel this is more rewarded than an average original post on hive?

Yes, and that is exactly what I would expect. I post rather infrequently. I only post when I have something important to announce or when I have something significant to say -- something that will either be significantly beneficial to potential readers or something that warrants considerable attention and/or engagement or debate.

As such, whenever I post, I expect it to be above-average both in terms of quality and importance and (hopefully) engagement. However, that is not something I can definitively know a priori. As stated above, I began writing this as a mere comment. After spending well over an hour formulating thoughts and organizing them, I realized that this was something that needed its own space, to generate its own awareness and its own engagement. And, in retrospect, it looks like that was the correct decision on my part, because in the marketplace of ideas, there seems to be some resonance, either with the ideas themselves, or with the need for engagement and debate about the topic, or both.

This question should be directed at those who voted for it.

Yes, AND those who didn't, like me for example, and others as well.

And yes, you don't post frequently, and that must be taken into account. Also your post is thoughtful and NOT a rant. You have positive things to contribute.

Yet, I do think your post is over-rewarded compared to average original posts on hive. I am glad to see that you agree.

Good. I think we are communicating. You are beginning to understand how this blockchain actually works. Socially.

You are beginning to understand how this blockchain actually works. Socially.

I am quite confident of my understanding of how things work, technically.

From a social standpoint, however, things are much more nuanced. I don't think anyone can truthfully claim to fully understand "how this blockchain actually works. Socially." (italics added) -- because there is no 'one way' that people socially interact.

The social aspects no doubt require a more circumspect consideration. From my vantage point, there are two competing 'worldviews' that greatly affect folks' social interaction on this blockchain. In large part, those differences depend upon the timing of an individual's arrival -- those who have been on the blockchain for years (like you) tend to view DVs as happenstance (i.e. not a big deal, whether given or received) and tend to view 'guarding the reward pool' as some sort of calling or duty or responsibility. By contrast, those who are relatively new (like me) tend to view DVs as toxic and counterproductive and give no or limited thought to 'guarding the reward pool'.

Although I do my best to see both perspectives, I cannot deny that I have my own biases. And, whereas my long-term goal is to see the platform grow and expand, I strongly favor a set of 'rules' that limits the amount of 'social damage' that any one accountholder can inflict on others, especially on others who don't share his/her worldview.

With all that said, many newcomers are likely to share my biases. My perspective is and has been focused on ensuring that those newcomers encounter a 'welcoming' place and that they desire to stay and become more and more engaged as time progresses. Subjective DVs very quickly turn what would otherwise be a pleasant experience into an unpleasant one.

To that end, my near-term goal is to provide a Layer 2 solution where newbies who share my worldview can arrive and thrive and not worry about subjective downvotes.

First, I must say your thought process is spot on! It is rare to find that these days from a relative new comer.

I don’t claim to be an expert on social aspects of hive. But you are correct I was there when we separated from steem. I was with the core members who wrote the code, although I am not a coder. Yes your understanding on how we interpret the upvote and downvote is accurate. As that is the way it was written in the original white paper and we stand by it.

To us, that’s the law of this blockchain.

Again I am so glad that you understood. I am ecstatic that you understood! :)

PS. I upvoted your comment above at 100%. Is it over-rewarded? Most certainly. But I wanted to communicate my happiness. We rarely enjoy small things in life these days. My vote is just that, small things in life. If someone DV and adjust that please don't feel bad. It is within their rights as a stakeholder.

I am glad we can share a little mutual understanding.

Although I do not purport to fully understand the 'code is law' mindset, I can say that if I had been one of the early arrivers, I would probably be much more closely aligned with that worldview than the one I currently have.

In any event, I believe that, by and large, we share the same goals. It's just that we disagree on the means and methods to achieve those goals.

That is why I have chosen to focus my efforts on Layer 2. If I can create a Layer 2 solution that is appealing to others who share my worldview, then I see three possible outcomes:

  1. not many flock to the Layer 2 solution and it dies on the vine,
  2. the Layer 2 solution flourishes and there ends up being some meaningful lessons-learned that lead to Layer 1 improvements,
  3. the Layer 2 solution flourishes, but nothing changes substantively with Layer 1.

I am okay with any of the three. My hope and preference would be for outcome #2. However, if we end up with outcome #3, the censorship-resistance features of Layer 1 will continue to provide foundational benefits to the Layer 2 solution, and any disagreements about Layer 1 downvotes and Layer 1 reward pools become irrelevant (to me and the members of the new Layer 2 community). And, those who find themselves unhappy with subjective downvotes on Layer 1 will have a place where they can go -- a place built on a firm foundation (something Blurt and sites like it cannot offer, imho).

There are lot of L2 options available already. The trouble becomes an even smaller subset of people and more circle voting. Look at Leo. Look at POB in the early days maybe even now. You simply don’t have enough things to vote. Most of us are leaning towards the fact that curation dependent economy is dying or already dead. Incentive must be placed in something else.

"Code is law," especially when used in reference to a blockchain where the code can be changed by less than two dozen people (all based on Stake and nothing else), is the same as saying "Might makes right."

This claim has been used since 2016, even though the code keeps changing. Weird, huh?

I have been pondering over the last several days about your ideas for a layer 2 approach. After much thought I do believe that you are indeed correct in that this would likely be the best way to rapidly innovate solutions for layer 1. I know, however, that their are people who would like to keep layer 2 on layer 2 so as to keep static how layer 1 is implemented in their favour at the expense of the entire Hive community. These people want innovation to happen at layer 2 and only at layer 2 and will do everything they can (from controlling what people see on the front page to the ranking of one’s voice in the comments section) to that end. Development on layer 2 justifies (in their minds) the merits of the current layer 1 structure so, of course, they are more than happy to encourage this sort of development. It’s smoke and mirrors however… a distraction from the disfunction happening on the foundational layer. Can we push through and make a layer 2 happen on the base layer? I hope so…🤞 but I guess time will tell. I see a lot of risk in developing on layer 2 with the current social climate.

sorry i find a little flaw in this particular line -
Three-hundred-plus individual minds have each assigned their own independent value.

u got hit with a trafalgar, haejin/rancho, etc vote, it then has a 20+ person trail, and then some of those have another 20 person trail attached that mirror votes.... so to assume that all those that voted actually READ the article is a bit too much for me to be able to believe - jussayin ;)
(had to go doube check i wasnt talking out my ass first ) XD
please dont nuke XD

Yes, at the time I believe the vote count was a little over 320, so I was hedging that number a bit. Even so, it is hard to say exactly how many "individual minds" are truly engaged here.

if ure wallet big enough, all are reading / trying to 'gain ure attention' XD - for us little folk, we just

'do you'

(again, im overtired and probably dont write right / convey well XD

i used to do long posts, now i see its pointless, cos noone actually cares unless i can upvote em for a dollar plus XD ;)


Its probably worth much more

Well darling, you have already made your call :)

You voted this post at 100%, that is the best you can do.

Flaunting in this way dehumanizes the platform. It also signals to everyone outside looking in… that there are inherent problems with this blockchain… but your so obsessed with your stake that I think you have lost the forest for the trees on what’s important for this blockchain.

This is a social platform where everyone’s voice should be recognized and respected. Stake isn’t something that can be used to discredit someone else’s voice and belittling people publicly. Talking down to people puts the entire blockchain in a bad light.

We all have a voice. We all are important to how this social blockchain works. Social Capital counts just as much as Financial Capital does and minimizing someone in this way is extremely disrespectful not only to the individual you are talking to but also to the entire community of owners that on this blockchain.

I respect your effort into creating different solutions and accepting that downvotes need to exist on Hive. Wish you best of luck with your experiment and also agree that downvoting to 0 where effort, content and engagement existed does more harm than good, in general zero'ing is not good, no matter the real intention of the downvoter.

the "problem" is FREE downvotes

no trial

no appeal

"they" tell you to beg for mercy

Yes, Level 2 is the way to go. I hope for much more tribes (outposts) on HIVE and especially looking forward to your project announced here between the lines. !BEER !WINE !BRO

Congratulations, @no-advice You Successfully Shared 0.100 WINEX With @trostparadox.
You Earned 0.100 WINEX As Curation Reward.
You Utilized 1/3 Successful Calls.


Contact Us : WINEX Token Discord Channel
WINEX Current Market Price : 0.460

LOL... before opening this post, i really should have thought about how much data it was gonna cost me XD .... 4:15 am and im already half way through my 500mb allocation for the day ( $2 a day optus) - looks like its gonna be a $4 day. (up to 1gb data for the day )
oh well such is life.

There has already been too much ENGAGE today.


PIZZA Holders sent $PIZZA tips in this post's comments: tipped @jelly13 (x1)
failingforwards tipped trostparadox (x1)

Learn more at

Congratulations @trostparadox! Your post has been a top performer on the Hive blockchain and you have been rewarded with the following badge:

Post with the highest payout of the day.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:

Bee ready for the 2nd Hive Power Up Month challenge!
Trick or Treat - Share your scariest story and get your Halloween badge
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!

Congratulations @trostparadox! You received a personal badge!

Yeah, you made it and joined us at HiveFest VI

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking

Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:

HiveFest⁶ Meetings Contest