You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: On my way to the Hive side, with SteemSTEM

in #steemstem2 years ago

But Hive is super-centralized as Steem is and was, as I assume voting rules have not changed and voting power and wealth of the new chain will be just stripped of the power of a few (Steemit stake).


I disagree with that statement. Today, Steem is controled by a single individual. Hive is not. The top witnesses want the success of the chain, and we can hope having them to support projects like HiveSTEM (or the future name that will be given to it). The future will tell it :)

Between 1-person tyranny and oligarchy. Hive witnesses still support the (voting) system that led to steem governance problems.
I've explained the problem and asked several witnesses about their position, only 1 took it seriously. Others just didn't respond.

Maybe an oligarchy, but the oligarchy can change with time as I do not think any single individual controls more than a few percents of the total supply. That makes a big difference in my opinion.

Concerning the other point you raised, Hive is not perfect and there are many ways to improve it. The good thing is that developers are working on this, and things move.

And finally, I do not think that 1 shareable vote per user changes anything. It just scales everything down, no?

One thing I agree is that hive can evolve into something better. But it's a very open problem.

Let's note that 30:1 vote system allowed for tyranny. Simply, one colluded minority lost to another. Old witnesses would keep around 10 places in the top 20 if not for the 30:1 rule. But before on steam and now on hive this exact rule allowes some of them to keep his/her place as a top witness.

And finally, I do not think that 1 shareable vote per user changes anything. It just scales everything down, no?

Why to introduce and keep such a construct if it changes nothing? It allows a minority to stay in power as long as they cooperate, as I have explained in this post:

P.S. Sorry, maybe I do sound negative and confrontational, it's not my intent.
Best Wishes!

No problem in discussing and being negative. As along as the discussion is polite, I am find to discuss anything.

What I meant is that moving from 30 votes to 1 shareable vote may just not change much as this corresponds to an overall scale factor. But this is incorrect as one can relatively give more strength to different witnesses and so on. I will think about your ideas, but not this week (too busy with non-HIVE matters).