RE: DO NOT read this post unless you actually understand Hive
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
My VP has been lower lately due to the GU community after onboarding tons of new people and seeing a lot of new content emerge, it's also one of the nice things with VP that when you need it more it will be there and not deplete instantly but scale down while still giving out decent sized votes and in a way "refresh faster" or at least feel like it. I'll be trying to get it back up, in general I like keeping it at 80-100% as well as it feels nice to give a post that deserves it a max vote and seeing it give as much as possible of your vp.
In general for ocd, though, since we curate and get vote recommendations by other curators manually, we've been having a bit harder time to deplete all of our voting power daily. We could of course just go off the cuff and throw votes around to people who already do well (a question I often get from people is why OCD isn't voting them which often is cause they already do quite well), but we feel it's much better to give people realistic rewards so the platform can scale while distributing the rest to those who could be better rewarded. This is why we have been voting a bit more often on the hbd.funder comments to help stabilize HBD with remaining VP we have since the userbase has not grown by as much as the price of Hive has. If we start seeing a lot new content creators join in each and every community then we will gladly curate those who need it more and not throw votes at the stabilizer but for now we think this is the best outcome and would hope others would feel the same way than just constantly stack votes or autovotes on the same people over and over no matter what they're posting and getting the same usernames on trending daily.
Later on we believe that downvotes will play a great role (if used wisely and well) to make sure posts don't get overrewarded too often or that the same people get rewards all the time as it may discourage certain votestackers to continue voting on the same authors to keep their rewards at realistic levels. In general I think it's something important because if we can't manage this and get angry over downvotes or constantly just attempt to maximize your own posts without caring if others are getting their fair share it'll mean that the way the reward pool works right now won't be able to scale and that we may just as well completely change it or move it over to another layer or reward the tokens and layers the same way we reward witnesses where a certain percentage goes to them from the newly created Hive depending on certain factors.
Anyway, this got a bit lengthy and maybe deep. Just something to think about if we want to make sure curation works as good as we want it for the future of Hive and that it can scale with the tools given to us at the time. I realize there's still a lot of stigma and hate towards downvotes, for some I do understand it as well as they can be used badly just as much (if not more) than how they can be used well - much like upvotes, so I really think more people should get over how they feel about giving and receiving them and just appreciate what they're meant to do and try to use them well and enjoy the process and advantages Hive gives you in general from the upvote rewards. Excessive/malicious downvotes are often times only affect a tiny percentage of users and I'm sure that if someone were to use them "well" but be countered with retaliation than most bigger stakeholders and curators would come to their side to counter them similar to if they were to be downvoted too much.
It'll be interesting to see how the use of them evolves but to answer your question;
how much VP you have doesn't really change how much returns you get since the curve is now linear so I doubt it matters. :P
One of the behaviors that I've seen that's a little annoying is the pancake-pile that happens to some posts that Appreciator goes for. Traf and some of the others with really high vote values will just dump a 100% vote on it just because they are following a high vote they see. Some of the posts that it happens to aren't nearly deserving the 200$+ payout that it looks like (in my humble opinion of course, nothing personal against the account that receives it). Granted, I know the person is happy as shit to get such a large potential payout, I would be too, but that stuff irks me a little bit. No fault to Traf and those other guys with huge stake but don't just pile onto one post is the mindset I'd love to see more of..
I like your philosophy of the good upvote for some people though, particularly new users and accounts. I might try that idea with the communities I am running. It's always great to give new users a good thank-you for coming by!
I agree, it happens to some of our votes as well. There's some times for instance we vote up a post by a newcomer that we think would be nice to get to trending as getting new people there every once in a while wouldn't hurt - only to then see like 4-5 different whales stack their votes and then we get people complaining about how it's overrewarded.
A big issue with this is that re-voting removes all your curation rewards so you can't later go "oh this got rewarded a bit much so I'll change my $80 vote into a $10 or $20 vote cause doing so means you'll get 0 curation rewards and just encourage the voters who stacked their votes later with more rewards (as they'll get your share you gave up). I don't mind downvoting them a bit with my personal account of course but it's not as big to make an impact (as downvotes take a portion out of each upvoter rather than just penalize one of them). Thankfully there's already plans to fix re-voting to not cost the voter all of the curation returns in a future hardfork so will be interesting to see how many will start doing it. That is if they care, cause I think many of those who stack their votes just do it real quick and carelessly or are just autovotes that won't be looking back at what the post ended up in rewards. Similar how many don't care enough to downvote certain overrewarded posts in the first place.
It'll be an improvement for those who do care, at least and what exactly that change will do for voting power is hard to tell right now (i.e. if changing a vote from $80 to $20 will give you 75% of that voting power back or if changing from $20 to $80 will only cost you an extra 75% voting power due to the first vote).
as @cmplxty said here, this seems like a great move for Hive as a whole. May not be quite as profitable for those big bag holders though. Hard to orchestrate something important like that happening consistently.
This sounds amazing @acidyo. I've wondered if something like this would ever happen. Not sure if there would ever be a way to say... undo an accidental 100% vote and change it to 10% without losing 110% of your voting power. Get what I'm saying there? Kind of hard to explain that bit. Pretty sure that is what you were mentioning at the end.
Yep, in fact that accident just happened today (if you've looked at trending). It happens, we're human and it's not like we should discourage manual votes that some times may go wrong so I can't wait for this change especially for the error ones.
Oh wow, I see. seaspect must be feeling on top of the world right now.
It's a culture thing for sure. We were able to get rid of the bid bot culture so I think we should be able to help persuade the big holders to be a little more balanced with it all, I would hope!
Looking forward for sure to the ability to adjust a vote up or down and not waste the voting power to do it.
Looking forward to the change in voting! I wouldn’t mind increasing the vote on some peoples posts but will occasionally not due to wasting voting power since it counts twice.
Hopefully we can change the culture around piling on the votes!
Those GU Hive babies need your tender care @acidyo.
How you put it here makes the most sense. If you stick to voting one way for an eternity, surely that will get old eventually. Adapting on a day-to-day basis is probably going to be the best way to curate manually. Some days could be shit for content and others may be chock full of golden posts.
Having to spread all of what OCD is capable of handing out around Hive is a massive task that surely needs a team of dutiful curators.
As much as it probably hurts OCD's curation rewards to often avoid posts that have already achieved some success with potential payout, it would be so bad for the small guys and newcomers if OCD just hopped on that train towards maximum profit. The curation practice of OCD vs a solo dude like myself just cannot be the exact same since the stake at hand is drastically different and the number of people involved as well.
Is there really any other option at the moment besides letting the extra voting power waste away? It makes sense to put it to use someplace. I feel like I have been seeing people tweet about hbd.funder being bad for Hive. I didn't quite get what they were trying to say though and assumed they were wrong since so many large stakeholders do it. I cannot find the tweet otherwise I'd be linking it here.
Scaling is what will lead to success for Hive years down the road. I know I don't want to just have a few years of success and then dip out. I would love to have continued success and also watch others learn to find that same success here. Winning alone just isn't as good as winning with a team.
BAM! Thank you for the detailed response and for bringing up several topics of importance.