RE: Ask Me Anything - Marky Edition - November 2021
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Are the top 100 accounts being diluted by the inflation as a whole, or are they maintaining their percentage of the whole?
And the top 10?
At what point does future inflation, say the next 10 years, stop being a significant threat to their oligarchy?
Has it already stopped?
It may become harder to sell the hive if some significant selling doesn't occur out of these accounts.
Who buys into a game they can't compete in?
What do you think of burning flagged rewards?
Congrats on the nft sales.
No idea, I really don't look. I suspect they are doing fine as most of the stake is voting.
Same as above.
What oligarchy?
No one seems to be having any problem selling.
100% disagree. I think any incentive for flagging is a generally a bad thing.
Thanks!
Our stake is configured in a pyramid.
Pyramidal structures beget hierarchies.
Any cooperation between those at the top of the pyramid constitutes an oligarchy.
It's just the way of things in hierarchies.
I prefer a more horizontal distribution, but good luck getting that past the crapitalust indoctrination in most people's minds.
So, specifically, those who's interests lie in a certain circumstance will exhibit similar behaviors even in the absence of actual verbal communication.
Each knows what benefits themselves and act accordingly.
Ergo, to stay in power on oligarchy will form, or those in power will cease to hold power, at some point.
My question is, have we reached the point that the top however many accounts will never change absent wholesale selling by those with the most?
Is there enough inflation left that the current concentration of power will dilute in the next how many years?
Who are those accounts not diluting, by earning enough to stay ahead of the inflation?
I ask because the reputations of our largest holders will impact the rest of us, and there remain some that I think will benefit the hive by selling out.
I'm trying to find mathematical proof of that, but lack the sql skillz to get at it.
Your response here will determine, for me, where you lie on the gradient scale.
Do you favor the current power structure, or would you like to see the current centralized power structure leveled out to where the actuality is that no select few control the coin?
I know it is said that no one person holds more than 1% of the power, but I don't believe that for a second.
People that reset the chain to guarantee themselves 80% of the coins don't relinquish control this easily.
Not when the influx of the masses stands to make trillionaires of them.
Lol, ain't that the truth.
The price keeps dropping.
Not what I meant, though.
What I mean is that the club of folks that can lay down a few billion to bootstrap our coin further may be dissuaded from participating due to the rumor mill.
If hive is to become a top ten coin vetting of who gets rich is certainly gonna take place.
Good to know.
You would rather feed the currently popular than spread the wealth to everybody?
How is it a pyramid, there will always be people who have more money, who save more money, doesn't spend/sell it all. I'm part of the Oligarchy because I didn't sell every penny I got? Sounds more salty than factual.
You want more "horizontal distribution", buy some Hive, save it. Most people are dumping everything they 'earn' then complaining people have more than them.
How do you think an economy would work if everyone had the same amount and no one was allowed to do more than any one else? I seem to remember an economy that works like this...
Having money is not a sin. I think it is ridiculous to think because some people have more money than you it is an Oligarchy.
I am a bad person or part of some Cabal because I am the 16th largest stake holder?
Yes poor people have poor ways, but definitely a pyramid.
Maybe, depends on the evidence that gets presented.
The answer could change over time, too.
Rich people have rich ways.
Cheeky, for sure.
More accurately I would like a more horizontal distribution of the inflation.
Who has what is not as much a concern, to me, provided we can level the field at some point(preferable sooner rather than later).
If they are not voting stake in excess of XXXkhp, that suits me.
1000mv is a climbable hill.
A not unattainable goal.
The question arising is how many folks are gonna be willing to buy in while doing so makes a select few folks extremely wealthy.
Example, who is gonna buy enough pay tokens to be somebody, while making me a billionaire on paper?
My conclusion, the more level the peaks the more likely somebody buys a mountain.
How many people can afford to buy in to match you, let alone the people taking out the most from the pool?
Who buys in seeing that the game is an endless feeding of the insatiable?
But, were more restraint being shown, perhaps new investors would overlook the disparity in equity.
Yeah, they will really cry when they find out that hive is the best investment on the market.
Excepting maybe silver and working farms.
Not a security, not a premine(for all intents and purposes), not an energy hog, 3 second no fee transactions, seriously, people selling now are shooting themselves in the foot, imo.
Were we to set up a cultural norm that one powers up everything until the account has 1mv I think we could put a halt to much of this selling in proportion to the energy put into engineering the more desirable behavior.
Perhaps goals delineated by reputation, ie, a 70 rep account should have several mv.
Getting everybody on the same page would take some effort, but once established, changes to the behaviors should result.
We just need more 'community consensus'.
You can take 'not allowed to do more' off the table.
Either the ideas sell as a better choice, or they don't get chosen.
No enslavement in my utopia.
Clear example #1.
Clear example #2.
Accedemic treatise #1.
Workers explanation.
Further reading: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Emma's essay, if you read nothing else.
No need to burn books when nobody reads anymore.
I agree, the sin comes in in how it is used.
Yes, more evidence would be required to conclude such.
Not necessarily.
Time will tell.
If we care to devote the attention to finding out.
I'm sure most folks in the upper echelon are doing the best they can, but I'm also sure some are misguided in their attempts at utopia.
I'm not sure all of them care about others enough to be that broadminded.