RE: Self-Defeating Ideology
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The argument I have made in the past (and the only one I have heard made from any top 20 witnesses) in support of layer 2 reward pools replacing layer the 1 reward pool at some point - is not that layer 1 rewards are a fundamental problem for Hive and so should disappear - it's that part of growing Hive involves supporting specialised sub groups and communities, which is best served by having layer 2 rewards pools.
This is due to a variety of reasons, but one of the key ones to many people is that when a few people have enough L1 stake to drastically remove stake from posts via downvotes and when the rewards for every sub community come from the same pool, we end up with a situation where communities are unlikely to form on Hive if a few high value stakeholders don't like the kind of content that they do.
There are numerous large communities online who would absolutely thrive in and hugely support Hive if they ever got fully involved, but they won't get involved because they get shut down as they try to break into the layer 1 rewards pool in a meaningful way. Regardless of the specifics of the accounts and topics involved, the fact remains that the current forcing of all accounts/communities to suffer the views of other larger stakeholders who may or may not respect them is not empowering or attractive (read: results in a difficult to market system) when compared to the possibility of groups having the option to benefit from the Hive model without 'stepping on the toes' of others in the way that L2 allows. Some users may get (overly) 'protective' of L1 rewards due to their own views and/or ideologies, but such concerns become irrelevant if all rewards are paid out from L2 chains, since everyone will have a choice to be able to hold stake in differentiated sub communities as well as in the core L1 token which would now represent the overall parent technology, but the price of which would now not specifically be subject to the personal ideologies/whims/beliefs and choices of individual token holders.
It's one thing to allow anyone to own shares in an investment vehicle and real world project, but it's quite another for every single one of them to be in a position to constantly, in realtime, be able to make decisions that directly dissuade subsets of others from investing. In fact, the growth potential of the current system is hugely weakened as a result of such obvious threats being posed to any sub communities in their efforts to grow and promote themselves online without having to deal with negative PR generated through being forced to put up with the thoughts and actions of people who they never met, who are outside of their community and who may not even agree with their existence as human beings, let alone with their value systems when it comes to rewards distribution.
Optimisation of decentralisation requires, as a bare minimum, support for the right to free association. Developing a community norm which cultivates, in intelligent ways, the creation of and growth of L2 rewards pools for sub communities is a requirement for the technology to really respect freedom of association in anywhere near as complete a way as is possible/needed. The reality is that society includes a wide variety of groups who do not all agree with each other. You will hugely limit the growth of the system (massively so) if the membership and application of the network is shaped significantly by the personal tastes of the early adopters... It's akin to Facebook only allowing groups to thrive for certain topics and in alignment with the personal views of the owners.. It should be abundantly obvious that one of the unique selling points of Hive is that it offers an alternative to the authoritarian models seen used on FB - yet it cannot deliver on that promise while actually facilitating the almost guaranteed creation of the mirror image of the structure behind FB on Hive. If we don't want Hive to become Facebook 'decentralised', then empowerment of sub communities is a necessary first step.
People are free to build tokenized echo chambers. Nothing is stopping them.
Right but they don't come the same pool... do they?
Just because HiveEngine code is lazy and piggybacks off of Hive code is pretty irrelevant.
HE is one sad implementation of L2 'solutions'; a bad on at that.
But here you are implying that this is how it will always be.
You're also making assumptions like, "of course the upvotes from Hive will always be larger than L2"
while also somewhat ignoring the fact that you can get around this by weighting votes differently...
Or using multiple accounts.
Okay, and getting rid of the L1 reward pool is an obvious disempowerment.
"Better that everyone get zero Hive rewards than some people get downvoted."
What?
Hive has nothing to do with Facebook.
Hive is not a social media.
Hive is decentralized text storage at the core.
To repeat the spirit of the OP that could be pretty much anything.
The evolution of this network is going to catch a lot of people off guard.
And that evolution has nothing to do with removing one of our most valuable assets.
I'm actually shocked that this conversation even has the possibility of occurring.
Yet here we are.
I think maybe you interpreted my words differently to my intention here. I was referring to the Layer 1 rewards pool on Hive - from which most rewards come and obviously all rewards on Layer 1. Hive Engine tokens are indeed layer 2, but I am not advocating for the exclusive use of Hive Engine here. I agree that we need successful templates, I am just saying that I think it's possible to have successful sub-community templates that operate in a way that we currently recognise mostly in layer 2 systems and that ultimately this could replace the layer 1 reward pool. Essentially, I am pointing out that it is possible to overcome 'first mover advantage' in a space, even though often that doesn't happen. Just as it is technically possible for Hive's ecosystem to one day overtake Facebook, it is also possible for sub community models to become the optimal choice on Hive. In both cases there is a factor involved which is centred around habits, beliefs and attachments to 'the old way'.
No, I never previously mentioned Hive Engine in this thread - I was referring to layer 2 sub communities as a type of network/design pattern rather than to Hive Engine's implementation specifically.
That's kind of the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that I suspect the most successful future model for Hive to include zero L1 votes for rewards and zero rewards pool on L1.
I think you are talking about a different idea to the ones I am focussing on, so I'm not 100% sure of your meaning here.
An intelligently designed evolutionary process is necessary to take current Layer 2 structures to a place where they can replace layer 1 rewards in a sustainable way. This requires some experimentation and focus/intent - which is a bit lacking, partially due to the current cost of developing a layer 2 projects. Upcoming layer 2 solutions from SPK and others may speed up this process.
If there were no layer 1 rewards pool then those who want to invest in the community building side of Hive will move their stake to layer 2 projects and those who want to focus more on the tech/governance and other features will likely stay more on L1 (what we are currently calling L1 and L2 probably wouldn't stay named in that way under this model). I can take your logic the other way around and ask 'If layer 1 rewards are a positive for the network then why wouldn't they be replicable on layer 2 if the challenges involved are overcome?'. Deliberately switching from Layer 1 rewards to an evolved model of layer 2 rewards would obviously yield greater upvotes on L2 in the more supported groups.
Hive began as a blockchain project with built in support for social media features that have been adjusted and re-purposed over time for other uses. Numerous Hive projects are social media oriented.
Hive is more than that at core, it is an immutable account management system too, also combined with ledger transactions and tokens etc.
Yes, it can be many things, but the topic here is a focus on layer 1 rewards which are ultimately most optimised at present to be an extended feature for social media posts - hence the curation aspect that involves discovery, ordering and distribution of content.
Yes.
I think it's clear we are viewing this idea through different lenses, with different ideas for it's implementation. I am not talking about removing any assets, simply changing the shape of one of the main ones to extend the use cases and also the appeal of the network.