90/100 Posts on Trending are "Overrewarded posts" with no Downvotes(actually some have upvotes from the Downvoter Whales), when will they be Downvoted by the Downvoters hitting our community?(not advocating to DV)

in #informationwar11 months ago (edited)

The point of this post is to point out to all that read it, that the Trending Page is massively over-rewarding people now that Hive is about 80 cents to 1 USD.

This is not a dig or a slight or anything bad aimed at anyone.

This post is Limited to 6 HBD earnings.

THIS CRITERIA IS NOT FROM ME(and I don't recommend downvoting these posts on Trending either), mind you, this criteria is coming from the Downvoters that left comments on @ura-soul posts and other posts by Downvoters with large stake. https://hive.blog/covid19/@ura-soul/your-comments-on-the-cancel-culture-and-zeroing-of-viral-posts-on-hive-by-curangel

I encourage you to look through 100 posts on Trending, and you will see that MAYBE 5 to 10 of them are not over-rewarded. It might have made sense to upvote people at 100% from a Whale when Hive was below 30 cents, as the post rewards for that might only be 5 USD to 10 USD which isn't much with a 50/50 split. Now that Hive is worth a lot more the people who used to do huge upvotes all the time on others are causing a large imbalance in over-rewarding others while downvoting and going after a few that they don't like in our community.

https://hive.blog/ AKA "over-rewardedposts.blog"

So when are we going to have a serious conversation as a community about over-rewarded posts, and how Downvote wars are not the answer?

I'm going to blow your mind, the most simple fix for MOST of this issue is to encourage people to set the "max earnings on a post" to a low amount on posts that didn't take long to write, aren't high quality, and that don't add value to Hive. They can STILL get onto trending if their post only has 1 HBD limit, as long as they get large upvotes from others it gets on Trending and gets more exposure. The Downvoters are also in violation of their own rules for Downvoting, they have posts that are over-rewarded that didn't add value to hive, didn't take long to write, weren't high quality, etc.

I set my post to not be worth much, 6 HBD with a 50/50 split earns me 2.40 USD or so(I'm rich!!!). This post I am writing took more effort than most posts on Trending, and that says something about how broken things are right now. I probably edited, removed words, added words, redid things for about 40 minutes before posting this. Not saying I'm a good writer or anything, just saying the time it took was a lot longer than most on Trending. I had a lot more written down with links and references, but I deleted it and condensed it to make it shorter. Everyone here can just browse through Trending and see for themselves as it is pretty obvious who is over-rewarded.


Part of the issue here is that the toxic nature of some of the biggest coin holders here means that many people simply don't want to come here and potentially enrich them. Most people have seen the problems that this has caused on Facebook and Google powered sites, so definitely don't want to be a part of recreating that here. On the other hand, if they can be rewarded for investing the most rare and valuable of 'commodities', their time, then they will risk helping the Hive chain to grow. If, however, they are not going to be rewarded much - even while others are rewarded drastically more - then there is even less incentive for them to leave existing mega networks. The small audience here is in no part due to the greed of some of the biggest token holders and always has been. It's an ugly sight to behold, regardless of their justifications.

I fully understand that people might think the same of me to some extent when they see that my posts have been highly rewarded - but I see the situation differently. I could easily sell my articles to online sites for publication and get paid nicely for it - probably more than I would get on Hive. I could also go and develop social networks - as I have done previously - and also get paid well for it. I chose to help grow hive because I want to do something that is public, decentralised and that might genuinely help the whole of society to be empowered. This is my motive for being here. At this point, I can't really set aside much time in my day for writing posts on here as I have done if the rewards aren't available - because it just isn't an optimal use of my time. If the rewards totally dry up then I might still post here but would more likely go to wherever there is either a large audience or the rewards that help make it all practical.

I don't really think that the community should be stunting it's own distribution of rewards in order to prevent some people who are obviously acting in bad faith from disrupting everything. On the other hand, if that's what the community wants then it should be tried! I suspect you will just see people pumping out a high volume of posts with a low reward limit, however. "Here's my 30 part recipe for boiled eggs".

This is exactly why I personally can not get many political content creators who have been banned from YouTube, Twitter and elsewhere to give HIVE a try. They have already had their livelihood attacked and do not want to spend the time and energy learning a new platform, just to be slammed for their views, as milquetoast as they might be.

I know some people's motivations here are not related to making an income, but personally I find that view ridiculously privileged. Especially when I check out their stake.

I just pay attention to the integrity within the people who hold power in a system because this is the root of how successful and productive the system will be. If people are obviously lying and manipulating, especially in a self serving way, then the results are going to be easy to predict over time. We are at a time of transformation and need to leave these dysfunctional ways and people in the dust.

Which I think Hive/Steem will never take off in the way they "could".

I suspect that a few key developments that empower a wide variety of people to run layer 2 projects in ways that really are quite isolated might be enough to shift things around, but we'll see.

layer one is broken

you can't build a house on a cracked foundation

I don't really think that the community should be stunting it's own distribution of rewards in order to prevent some people who are obviously acting in bad faith from disrupting everything. On the other hand, if that's what the community wants then it should be tried! I suspect you will just see people pumping out a high volume of posts with a low reward limit, however. "Here's my 30 part recipe for boiled eggs".

I think you should start making extremely badly written and short recipe posts and earn 150 USD. Looks to be a lot easier than trying to think!

I think that pretty much nobody wants to limit their earnings on a post, and that is drawing a lot of the fire from the Downvoters. There also are no clear standards on why a post about a Photo Challenge post is OK to make 50 USD when it only took a few minutes to do, but a post you do that might have taken you an hour to write and hours of research is bad at 50 USD.

There seems to largely be no rhyme or reason when looking at the Trending Page getting upvotes VS the people getting downvotes.

There's definitely scope for making the rewards algorithm more intelligent, but a lot of the best ideas rely on oracle data that is either hard to reliably obtain or that can be gamed. For example, if there was a way to accurately measure post views and inbound traffic from posts then it could be directly integrated into the rewards.

Unfortunately, to be decentralised and open source this would require a lot of code and processing that is kind of off-topic for Hive's tech as it stands and the data could possibly be gamed too.

A system that is based on subjective valuation of stakeholders will always be inherently warped towards the opinions of the biggest stakeholders, it's not only a route for 'winning influence' with people but also even money laundering too. Just as NFT sales seem to often be a way of laundering money, I can see how Hive's reward pool could be too.

Solutions need to take all of this into consideration. I think layer 2 communities are probably the best bet but they need to be very configurable and available without investing $1000s.

Have you guys seen blurt? It has no downvote option. It’s not worth so much atm but is going up quite fast x

We all know that this entire scenario has nothing to do with "over-rewarded" posts (or auto-voted posts, or whatever other totally bullshit reasons they give for the DV sprees). It is purely targeted down-voting against a certain section/sub/section of the Hive community (which is an oxy-moron in itself these days), or purely based on personality conflicts/disagreements. That is just the PR campaign and deception that is being waged in the name of those who deliberately deceive the user base, to further their own interests, and who like to wield abusive power over others because of their sociopathic and egomaniacal traits, based on greed. It's that simple. Anytime you engage these people with logic they run away or downvote more. They also go on massive down vote sprees on comments too, so lets not forget that either.

Unfortunately, these people even get cover from people on this blockchain who purportedly oppose some of these people on a philosophical basis as well (imposition of will over others, with the use of force)....or so they say. You would be amazed what types of abuse those in "power" positions on this platform will allow/justify, even when this is the case (ideological conflicts)....this is what greed, power and money do to people.

This platform is an absolute disgrace and a laughing stock at this point, when it gives clowns the power and access to highly powered accounts to deliberately abuse/target others maliciously. Not just on chain either BTW.

They get away with murder, and the show will roll on.

I don't see anything to disagree with in your comment my friend.

This is why I never set my filter on "trending" but on "recent". The trending posts are more-often-than-not 😴😴😴💤💤💤 I want to get a glance at everyone's post in this Hive High School grrrr😖 I just noticed a post curated by Hive pizza which was a 1 minute read and 2 pics of a pizza bought and not even made. I spent 3 hours making a pizza last night crust and sauce included (how to dissolve dry yeast and how to easily peel tomatoes for goodness sakes!🤯). How many people actually know how to do and actually do these things? For me, teaching others how to really cook is quality. Even if my pics weren't the best and my cooking material is very limited. Then I spent 2 plus hours to blog with a 5 minute read, tons of pics, and in 2 different languages. Well, luckily I have a sweety of a follower who voted $0.78 on my post💞 No hive pizza curation no nothing lol😅 Guess I should've just taken a pic of some pan pizza. I might've been curated then🤔🤣🤣🤣🤪

Next time just take pictures of a pizza you bought from the freezer section! :)

Haha lmao! Great idea🤣🤣 Not much of a pizza freezer section in Mexico...and thank God!😝 I'll try to remember my camera next time I hit Dominos or Pizza the Hut🤪 But I demand a commission for advertising their brands😅💞

Yeah! Same
Im always only on recent and Communities site on peakd^^

Yep, same here. Not that I didn't look at trending...for 1 minute 30 seconds😝🤣🤣😴💤💤💤💤

Thanks for the recipe 👍

Any time🙏 Shows that living in the south of France near Italy with tons of Italian natives as well as descendants at least taught me something lol🤣🤣🤣 But I still can't swing the crust in the air without it getting stuck on the ceiling😅🤪

There is currently a Whale's actifit post that has no pictures and 34 words and has $36 of rewards on it. Seriously.

Again, after almost 4 years here I respectfully suggest that autovotes and curation trails are the problem.

If we were attempting to have this conversation two years ago, the blame would have been placed on Vote buying services.

The situation on Hive is that the rich get richer and ever more powerful. It's Proof of Stake and whether we like it or not, that's how it is. We can choose to be here, or not.

The richest and most powerful control the content. Not much different to the system that blockchain technology and crypto aimed to overcome.

The other problem for people like myself who are primarily readers (customers) is that we don't have and never will have huge stakes because we don't produce content (of any note!) so again, we are at the mercy of the whales to see what's placed before our eyes or spend hours trawling through total dross to find something that catches our eye.

The whole platform has pushed away more serious content and turned into a never-ending stream of bubblegum posts. If this is organic, then so be it, that's a decentralised community working well, but the real reason is that content is driven by reward and so we come back to the fact once more, content visibility is driven by the biggest stakeholders.

If we allowed vote-buying, people could pay to have eyes on their work which would hopefully encourage more serious and thought-provoking posts of high quality and along with that, engagement.

Alternatively, stop rewarding in Hive and make tokenised communities responsible for rewarding the content within that community. That should be an easy task and allow the Hive reward pool to be channelled into development and perhaps into the exchanges to provide token liquidity.

I think it should be called Proof of Whale.

I agree that the bubblebum posts are being pushed up, while maybe 1 or 2 posts about decentralization will make it to the top few hundred posts. Hive seems to slowly be turning into a Twitter knockoff where people earn money for boring and uninteresting posts about their food or travel blogs.

Some of the large DVers aren't even actually owners of their large stake, they've been delegated their massive HP to wield all that power through DV as they choose.

This has become a platform where the powerful accounts who get "loaned" their massive HP from others in return for ROI (not actually HP that they own themselves, only delegated) are then negating the ability of others to get ROI on votes from their own HP that they actually own. But they don't care, because they got the power and can get away with it.

There are better ways to "make your money work for you" since you can't do it here. You can take what you own and use it elsewhere: DeFi.

Taking my curation rewards away on my votes to others that get DV (that's apart from huge DV on my posts from these massively delegated account(s)), is a negation of the whole purpose of curation rewards and having HP to vote others with -- they don't get rewarded, and I don't get ROI... it makes having HP pointless at that point other than just holding onto the asset.

So might as well get some ROI somewhere else since DeFi exists now. I had enough after 5 years ;) The negation of my curation was where I had enough after all this time. I wasn't too interested in holding and waiting. So I bailed. Thank you to Steem/Hive and what was created, but the DV behavior has ruined it for me.

I am in the same boat, I have made many many many times over profit in other places than on Hive.

please consider adding 18 lower ranked witnesses to your list


i'm staging a protest - -


Hehe most of those people were not in the top 50 when I voted for them as I was on a campaign to not vote for anyone in the top 50. It's been years since that I think... maybe I added fbslo recently, I forget. I'll proxy to you for the free speech initiative.

i'm honored by your confidence

Not addressing what is specifically on the trending page (not something I often look at to be honest), but in a free market, value is not determined by effort but by demand. It's about how much someone likes your product (post), not how much work you put into it. In theory putting more work into a post makes a higher quality, more "in demand" product (on average) but that is far from always the case. Of course this gets skewed somewhat by autovoting and the fact that votes are almost free.

However, suggesting that everyone put a cap on their rewards isn't going to work. Most people just won't do that. Not unless a way can be found to incentivize that in a positive way. Besides, you might put a ton of work into creating high quality posts that get little reward and then one day make a lower effort post (I don't mean spam or complete shitpost...just a shorter lower effort post) that makes a lot...hardly seems fair to limit yourself at that point does it?

Downvotes are the mechanism that are supposed to be used to adjust rewards when they are too high. The problem is that in their current iteration they don't function well enough to do that. A downvote often leads to revenge downvotes because it is taken personally. Alternatively, some whale may make a relatively small downvote in an effort to adjust rewards but if hundreds or thousands are following that downvote then that is impossible. Your post will go to 0 if downvoted instead of being moderately adjusted. We need a better way to adjust rewards as a community when they are seen as too high but I don't have an answer as to how at the moment.

This is the 2nd comment stating "people take it personally". It is personal. Smaller posters here use those rewards for real world purchases/bill/life. To be at the mercy of certain downvoters who may not agree with the stance/facts/views/opinions of the poster is an ugly place to be and will not lead to any growth.

I personally feel that some large whales involved in development and the crypto space overall are disconnected from who their customers could be.

Someone spending hours of "free time" a day putting out content about something they are passionate about in hopes of translating it into a small living is going to take it personally when someone with thousands of dollars sitting on a blockchain downvotes their work into the 7th circle of Hell just because they can.

My point being that if downvotes are used appropriately, then they should not be taken personally. It's not unreasonable, for example, to see a post that took 30 seconds to write and yet has hundreds in rewards and downvote it for disagreement with rewards. It's different if a whale is downvoting just because they disagree with you or you get stuck in a downvoting trail that always zeroes your post. I agree it's an imperfect system. Nobody except perhaps for other whales will typically dare to downvote a post of another whale for instance. I'm not sure what the solution is. But I don't think getting rid of the general mechanism is the right thing to do. Upvotes and Downvotes are critical to Hive but both have to be used reasonably.

I agree, the small posters here don't really get anything. They can try joining a community, but the long time favorite posters who have been here for years get the lions share of upvotes.

Generally speaking, the longer you are here, the more you are able to learn. That's because you collect followers over time, not all at once. With each post you are exposed to new potential upvoters. So yes, the more time you have been here the more you will earn but that does not require that you have been here from the beginning.

Which is why most new people on here make an account and quit pretty quickly. Their posts can't get upvotes and they can't get seen. This place also became more of a mess when they introduced communities, now I have half of the people posting stuff in #informationwar tag and the other half posting in Informationwar community. I have to go to two places now to make sure I see all of those posts, whereas before it was 1 place.

It's unfortunate that people expect fast, easy money. It's like sticking up a web page selling stuff and expecting to start making a lot in sales right away. That doesn't happen without a lot of work up front. You might use marketing and SEO in addition to providing a product that people want. On hive, you have to use persistence, participation and networking...in addition to making posts people want to read.

Communities have their advantages that I think outweigh the disadvantages. Personally, I don't find it to be a big deal to look at a tag and a community. I'm usually looking at multiple communities and tags anyway.

However, suggesting that everyone put a cap on their rewards isn't going to work. Most people just won't do that. Not unless a way can be found to incentivize that in a positive way. Besides, you might put a ton of work into creating high quality posts that get little reward and then one day make a lower effort post (I don't mean spam or complete shitpost...just a shorter lower effort post) that makes a lot...hardly seems fair to limit yourself at that point does it?

I think it is one of the tools that is good, to allow people to limit their rewards on the post. I get that people don't like limiting themselves(bacteria eat and eat and eat until nothing is left, we are mostly bacteria). Some people might not have known about this function and will now use it. I didn't know about it for awhile either, no one talks about it.

The problem isn't that there are high quality posts that get little reward, they are getting little reward because of subjective upvoters and not objective upvoters. If most people put limits on their posts of say 20 USD or 30 USD, those subjective upvoters would be wasting their upvote on voting more than that, so it spread it around more. That's one way of ensuring someone doesn't get 180 USD on a photo challenge that took them 1 minute to post, or some "cooking recipe" with 120 USD with no comments.

I think it is a good tool to have, I just think its usage will be somewhat limited. Perhaps it would make sense in the future to partially base how much a post is worth on factors other than purely votes. Some possibilities include number of comments, number of comments receiving upvotes, number of views, etc. I think the primary factor should be votes but this could be modified up or down on a percentage basis based on some of these other things. or maybe some mechanism that limited vote values on some scale...i.e. the first 100 votes are worth 100% of their normal value, the next 100 are worth 75%, etc. These are just a few random ideas and there are lots of possibilities. I think the situation will gradually improve over time.

There's no such thing as an "objective" upvoter, at least not in terms of the value of the content. The value of any piece of content to any given person is purely subjective. If people are worried more about whether or not their vote earns them (or someone else) more money than whether or not they like the post, I think that is counterproductive. People should be upvoting what they like if we want a consensus of the best content in trending/hot. If people really don't like your content, it shouldn't be getting upvotes just because it is there, regardless of how much work was put into it.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to blockchain enforced daily or per post limits but i think these would have to be limited only at the extremes. I also think having to provide a reason for a downvote might be beneficial though I'm not sure exactly how that would look.

I like the idea of people putting a hard cap on a post that they didn't put much effort into... I actually didn't know you could do that.

To be honest though, I don't downvote much because people take it so personally when it happens... like if someone gets $40 for a post and I downvote them $0.20, guess what people will focus on?

Because it is personal for someone using that $40 to pay an electric bill instead of having the freedom to power up that $40 on the platform.

Not making a comment on you or anything, just using your example to explain my stance.

So when are we going to have a serious conversation as a community about over-rewarded posts, and how Downvote wars are not the answer?

Many of the (actually few) content consumer people focus on the Trending page. Most other people focus on content creating. This results in a lot of ignored and overlooked posts, and in the general lack of real human comments. So much that the posts from most of the people does not get visibility. A new post quickly gets buried under other new posts. There are so much content creators, yet so little content consumers. And most of the content creators focus on individual growth instead of collective growth. The selfishness and greed spoils this platform.

So when are we going to act as a real community?

We have our own community we made in #informationwar and #deepdives for political/news things.

You could try joining one or making your own also.

Right now this entire platform is at the mercy of a few hundred people who have the majority stake.

a cabal of eighteen with maybe five influencers and thirteen followers

So when are we going to act as a real community?

What do you have in mind ?


"overvalued" is a subjective term and doesn't seem to come into discussion when the post is in agreement with the views of the person doing the DVing.

I can agree with that, which is why I only advocate downvoting of spam/plagiarism/graphic stuff without the NSFW tag/bot nonsense, etc.

Most of the posts that are on Trending are very over-rewarded, but I wouldn't downvote them. I would ask that people limit how much they get on posts like that, they don't have to listen.

I'm personally not in the business of downvoting, but I'm also not in the business of being lectured to by those with large stakes, power and a personal bias about who should be allowed to make a living for their labor.

In terms of the total eco-system is what I am more talking about. All of Trending right now is total bullshit and full of low effort posts milking the reward pool, but if we make a post that gets 60 USD we get downvoted. Yes it is def rules for Thee and not for Me type of thing going on, some of the whales who are downvoting ura-soul are upvoting garbage content on Trending.

I'm not sure we can change their minds to stop the downvoting, so we just have to pool together the best we can and grow larger than them.

Why not remove downvoting from posts, but not comments? Why are we using a single reward system of upvoting/downvoting posts based on 3 different criteria(subject matter, content quality, and whether or not we support the author)? Shouldn't we separate that? Support the author by subscribing that is equal to an auto upvote daily, with or without content. Like a post if we like the subject matter which is NOT factored into trending algorithm, but encourages author. Upvote for quality of post, which is factored into trending algorithm. These ideas aren't perfect, but lets at least toss out ideas rather than complaining without offering solutions.

I've been on here for over 4 years and have given many solutions before(I even gave one in my post).

These ideas aren't perfect, but lets at least toss out ideas rather than complaining without offering solutions.


I should been more specific. I read where you said that you have offered solutions and they got shot down. Thank you for trying. I wasn't talking about you specifically. It looked like to me that alot of people have been complaining about it for some time, but haven't offered any solutions.

So we should have forked those problems out when we switched to Hive? ^^

But that would also not be fair...

Tbh I see the problem deep down in Proof of stake.
It is just a rigged game. Those with the biggest stake decide. And have a big advantage at keeping the biggest stake

Was the problem from the beginning and will continue to be
At least in proof of stake..

So we should have forked those problems out when we switched to Hive? ^^

Nobody was, or is entitled to anything from a fork of anything. It could have been dealt with at the time of the fork, yes. Some accounts didn't get Hive in the fork, Justin Sun's accounts and others that supported him didn't from what I remember.

So we just stuck with dPOS problems

Smaller accounts can band together and out vote the larger accounts. Most of the whales arent on the same team per se, they sometimes act together on downvoting, but not due to being on some organized effort.

If you like the stuff we do in @informationwar you can delegate HP to us. We upvote a lot of political content

the biggest accounts can also band together..

Congratulations @truthforce! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You distributed more than 26000 upvotes.
Your next target is to reach 27000 upvotes.

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:

The new HiveFest⁶ attendee badge is waiting for you
Feedback from the November 1st Hive Power Up Day
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!

Do you believe every post should be limited?
My 2 posts took ages to coordinate, I re-wrote them several times over and made a huge effort to make it both informational and concise enough to be an easy(-ish) read.

For example, my last post stands at 20 currently, and I don't feel guilty for it - it took me over an hour and a half to write (including fixing up graphs, working on the script to create the content, and the actual writing of the post). If anything, the ROI is waaaay less than it's worth. I just like sharing my findings and the payout gives me additional motivation to make my posts accessible and clear.

As for those making the post - if these are people actively hunting rewards for minimal effort, then you can't trust them to restrict themselves willingly.
This was one of my questions to who brought me to Hive - how do you keep trash content from hitting the Trending? He mentioned that you can always choose to downvote. But I feel uncomfortable doing so (never mind that my power is non-existent anyway) if it's just "a post I don't care for". If it's a true trash post, I'll downvote.
I hope we don't get to a situation where bikini-clad pics earn the poster lots of votes for no effort. (Nothing wrong with lewds, but not exactly what I think most people come to Hive for)

I tried to look up trending posts, btw - I see 90% Splinterlands updates that seem to be pretty full of content, so no hate from me.

Hi to you,

I would say that this sphere is really predestined to be exploited. The existing functions with regard to the possibility of maintaining multiple accounts and being anonymous will not be changed, since registration with a clear name and ID number will probably not take place. Which nobody would want (data protection, etc.).

Since one neither knows the identity of an account holder nor how many he/she maintains, it is almost impossible to recognise who is on a large and/or subtle exploitative or robbery spree. Unless you invest a lot of investigative time and energy.

I sometimes fail to understand why there is such a serious and dogged struggle here about how to become masters of a problem that is and, in my view, will continue to be present by the very nature of the existing functions.
All of us together here produce shit posts, I don't see much difference in terms of what someone recognises as a quickly edited and cobbled together post.

The nature of this blogosphere invites mediocre, poorly timed content to be churned out as if by rote, if only because of the time window, which doesn't even reach the seven day attention span, but doesn't seem to interest readers or voters after just a few days. Me included, whether I like it or not, I adopt this habit, although I am critical of it and try to break this habit here and there. But it's no use if I remain the only one.

It's like Ford's first automobile manufacturing plant, only here we don't produce cars, but blocks, texts and pictures. It's assembly line to the overwhelming degree and rather uniform-looking productions. Exceptions confirm the rule. One may be grateful to chance when, loosely in the flow of reading or commenting, one comes across something unknown, surprising and even disturbing. In the long run, every tag becomes worn out and expanded and diluted.

What if you say, "So what? So the sphere is exploited here. Why not?"

All resources end at some point and as long as they are available, we have had our pleasure with them. What's all this fight about the reward pool?" Everyone behaves the same way here, even when it comes to accusations. Where has the humour gone?

In fact, I don't think anyone gives a damn about the reward pool. One can pretend to care, just as one can believe in a "greater cause", but in the end we really don't seem to care and probably only care for the sensational feeling that caring about a reward pool or world health etc. etc. seems to promise social recognition. Whoever says they don't care, will be then stoned? LOL

Let's just stop all this DV business and protectorate business and then we will see the true face of what we created. And as quickly as a blockchain is created, it ends. Why artificially maintain what can be so excellently exploited?

I sometimes get the impression that as much as there is talk about getting the masses on board, somehow this is not actually being done. It seems more like one wants to remain an exclusive club. Which, of course, has something to be said for it. One stays among oneself and has less competition to fear. LOL

The fast pace and the exchange of users is a fact. I hardly know any of those with whom I once engaged in a lively way of votes and comments who would still be here. I feel as if I once walked into a village where I had a lot of fun and also friction, but gradually all the villagers have left and I am the only one who has to constantly introduce myself to new residents who are a bit too exuberant in cheering the village.

..oh well, I think I got lost. :)

my post is currently in the top five on the "all trending" page