A couple of suggestions that would make things more believable:

• You need a believable way that their presences are verified.

For example, I can't even find any mention of Hive when I jump to @pressfortruth's many social media pages. That really doesn't make me feel confident about this content creator's presence on Hive (and I don't know if they are involved with you guys. It's just an example.)

PeakD does have a badge system you guys could use to let people know when a creator is verified. How that vetting process work is another story.

• Rewards on content where the author is not on Hive should probably be burned (which still allows curators to earn their shares). You can take a small percentage if you want.

Better yet, it would be cool if you guys could send the proceeds to those creators without accounts. They might eventually come to Hive.

It doesn't seem right to have you guys reap 100% of the rewards from those without accounts. The incentives there scream making sure that particular creator doesn't get an account (especially if it gets whale support) so you guys can still take all the rewards instead.

It always bothers me greatly when other people's content is pumped out here and we can only rely on some folks' words that they are being honest with the funds.

My philosophy has always been, "when money is involved, assume nobody is honest until they can prove otherwise".

I want to emphasize that the problem is not how the videos display on PeakD (or any frontends). It's the way the rewards are being allocated that some folks find suspicious.