Whitepaper: Human Curated Reputation

in Hive Improvementlast month (edited)

1000009845.png
Preliminary/prototype logo designed in a scribble by me and edited & professionalized by @ravenmus1c via @opengenie. The 50 dots represent the 50 votes each individual would have under this system and when gathered around the diamond in the middle, forming a bit of a hexagon.

White Paper: A New Reputation Voting System for the Hive Blockchain

Project Summary

Hive is a community of remarkable individuals, and this white paper unveils a reputation voting system that lets users curate the people who inspire them. Built on Hive’s pre-existing stake-based witness voting code, each account gains 50 reputation upvotes and 3 reputation downvotes to craft a vibrant, community-shaped reputation tapestry which truly reflects the quality of interactions between individuals. Self-voting is disabled, scores start with a welcoming baseline, and reputation flows from the net stake of votes (in Hive Power, HP). This system is about celebrating the human heartbeat of Hive, empowering users to lift up their peers, and weaving a network of trust and admiration.

Introduction

What if Hive’s reputation system wasn’t just about posts, but about people, the ones who make this blockchain a living, breathing community? This proposal invites users to curate the individuals they value most, turning reputation into a collective act of recognition. By adapting the witness voting framework, we create a stake-based system where every account starts with a small spark of reputation, and the community fans it into a flame. It's an opportunity to shine a light on Hive's finest, connect through shared appreciation, and let the people define the platform’s soul.

Background

The Current Reputation System
Hive’s existing setup ties reputation to upvotes on posts or comments, weighted by HP, with a downvote option, effective only if the downvoter’s reputation score is higher than the target’s. It’s a start, but it’s post-focused, which creates a number of disadvantages.

  1. Reputation tracks to content output, not a person’s full impact, but the two do not always align. For example, a person could be a Core developer for Hive yet rarely post, or if they post, it wouldn't necessarily be great content.
  1. Users can boost their own reputation, sidestepping broad community input. Once high reputation scores are attained, there is no means to reflect a shift in behavior.
  1. Often a downvote on content simply means a disagreement on rewards for that specific post and not an attack on the author's reputation.
  1. Inactive troublemakers dodge accountability. For example, an account that undeservedly downvotes others (thus creating a negative interaction) yet makes no posts should still face some repercussions for their actions.
  1. Exploitation is essentially incentivized. Those wishing to vote themselves into high reputation can do so by making multiple posts a day. With high enough stake, they can increase their reputation drastically before the community has a real chance to react.
  1. Big stakeholders (“whales”) often get tapped to step in. This can feel like an unwanted duty thrust upon investors who simply want to hold and stake Hive.

This proposal shifts the lens from posts to people, amplifying the community’s voice and creates a trend towards community consensus rather than a reliance on whales with big voices.

Witness Voting as a Foundation
Hive’s witness voting system - 30 stake-weighted votes per account, with stale vote removal and proxy options — grounds influence in commitment. It’s a ready-made springboard for a system that celebrates people over posts.

Proposed Reputation Voting System

Key Features
50 Reputation Upvotes:
Each account can send 50 upvotes to curate others’ reputations.

Anthropologist Robin Dunbar’s work notes 50 as a sweet spot for meaningful social ties, ideal for honoring Hive’s standouts.

Purpose: A generous canvas to paint a picture of who matters most to each individual. Alleviates the need to create a widely agreed upon algorithm based upon factors that most people feel are important. This will leave it up to the individual and creates a de facto consensus of the opinions of those who interact with any given account.

3 Reputation Downvotes:
Each account gets 3 downvotes for rare moments of concern.

Researcher Vidya Venkataramani observed people typically hold 1-3 rivalries, making this a light touch for balance with the ability to for accounts to redeem themselves.

Purpose: A small nudge to keep curation honest, not harsh. This allows the community to rally and address behaviors that are widely perceived as harmful or otherwise undesirable. Deserving causes are likely to receive the support they need without the need to rely on whales who may not be interested in the cause.

No Self-Voting:
Self-votes are out, so reputation stays a gift from the community.

Stake-Based Reputation Calculation:
Every account kicks off with 10,000 HP (score of 1), a warm welcome that says, “You’re here, and that’s a start.” Keeping a stake based aspect adds another perk for staking Hive. The more you stake the more your voice lifts those you champion. This also discourages the creation of multiple accounts to game the reputation system.

Reputation is calculated as:
Reputation Score = [(Total HP of upvotes - Total HP of downvotes) + 10,000] / 10,000

Example: Start at 1. Add 50,000 HP in upvotes, subtract 30,000 HP in downvotes, and the net is 20,000 HP + 10,000 HP baseline = 30,000 HP, or a score of 3.

Dividing by 10,000 keeps it simple and friendly. It's low enough that an upvote from a moderate holder of HP would result in a perceivable change to the recipient's reputation score.

Retention of Core Mechanics:
This system is largely already proven with the current witness voting system. So it will be pretty familiar to current users.

Vote Limits: 50 upvotes and 3 downvotes set the stage.

Stale Vote Removal: Votes fade if not refreshed, keeping it current and encouraging users to stay active.

Proxy Voting: Delegate votes to trusted proxies for ease.

Rationale for Design Choices
50 Upvotes: Robin Dunbar’s “50” reflects a natural circle of appreciation, perfect for curating Hive’s gems.

3 Downvotes: Vidya Venkataramani’s 1-3 rivalries keep negatives minimal, letting positivity shine.

Starting Spark: A score of 1 (10,000 HP) greets every user with possibility, urging them to shine through connection.

Stake-Based: HP roots curation in commitment, making it fair and fun.

Benefits
Reusing the witness voting mechanism results in an easy-to-implement solution with less learning curve than many other solutions.

Curated Community: Reputation becomes a gallery of people, not just posts, showcasing Hive’s heart.

Joyful Empowerment: Users get to champion their heroes and build their Hive, sparking bonds and pride.

Light Balance: More upvotes than downvotes tilt toward celebration, with a gentle check for fairness.

Growth Vibes: A low start invites users to ask, “How do I glow?”—answered by engaging positively.

Staking Lift: HP-driven scores nudge users to stake which increases their power to do good, powering Hive’s future.

Technical Implementation
The system tweaks Hive’s existing witness voting code as follows:

Set MAX_VOTES_PER_ACCOUNT to 50 for upvotes.


Add MAX_DOWNVOTES_PER_ACCOUNT = 3.


Add a self-vote block: if voter == target, reject.


Implement reputation formula:
reputation = [(sum(HP_upvotes) - sum(HP_downvotes)) + 10000] / 10000.

Rename old reputation formula to something more appropriate. 
Options:
- Content Score
- Upvotes Score
- Rewards Score
- Other community suggestions 


Effectively launches accounts with a 10,000 HP baseline.




Keep stake-weighting, stale vote logic, and proxy options.

It’s a smooth fit with what’s already there.

Challenges and Considerations
Perceptions of Importance: Some users may not feel that the current system has an overall negative impact on Hive; Let the community chime in.

Downvote Care: The 3 downvotes might stir small spats; a light HP threshold could calm that.

New Vibes: Users might need time to embrace the shift; a slow roll could help.

Tech Fit: Handling 50 upvotes and 3 downvotes per account needs a quick test run.

Next Steps

  • Play out the numbers on current scores.
  • Toss it to Hive’s governance for a community vibe check.
  • Spin up a testnet to tune the dials.

Conclusion
This reputation voting system hands Hive users the brush to paint their community’s portrait—one where curating people is the star. It’s about lifting each other up, sharing admiration, and letting the crowd craft a reputation that sings. Built on Hive’s solid bones, it’s a fresh way to connect and celebrate. A little testing and community chatter will polish it, but the goal is bright: a Hive that’s all about its people.

divider.png

I'd like to acknowledge and give special thanks to @meno, @ecoinstant, @buttcoins and @hivetoday. They listened to this idea, encouraged me to share it and spread the word to the community. Such encouragement and support is the essence of Hive and represents the magic that happens here every day. They would surely get my vote.

Sort:  

I really like ideas like this, we can definitely benefit from playing around with different reputation and governance systems. And with many other things.

It's possible to test out the idea right away. Almost all the needed tools already exist. Here is one way it can be done:

  1. Create a community (or use an existing community) which would be the testing ground
  2. Add people to the community, preferably those interested in experimenting with the idea
  3. Make a poll that has no end date and that allows voting on up to 50 choices. Each poll choice would be the name of the account you are voting for.
  4. For downvotes, make another similar poll that allows voting on up to 3 choices.
  5. Make the polls restricted so that only members of the community can vote on them.

That's it. If you are interested, I can assist with any aspect of setting it up. I would be quite happy to participate in the experiment also, and tell others about it as well.

That's a good idea. The only thing is how many options will the poll support? I don't know the answer.

It can support a whole bunch of choices, that shouldn't be an issue.

Remeber when you posted this idea before, its a interesting solution anf I think its much better than the solution we have now. If we could vote for a change, I would votw for this! :)

Thank you for being willing to discuss with me and being a sounding board for the idea.

Will have to read when I wake up but @meno's been praising it so will vote blindly for now to give it some attention!

It's a very interesting concept and like @caspermoeller89 has asked, is this proposed to replace or complement the existing rep system?

My main comment, why can people proxy when this is about human interaction? It makes no sense at all and goes against the whole concept

Hello. My thought is that the current system would be kept and renamed something closer to what it actually is, a representation of the HP weighted qualifying upvotes an account has received. I had suggestions for what it might be called if this new reputation were adopted.

My thoughts on the proxying would be for those with alt accounts who they would rather just follow their main. It could be changed if desired. But also since there's only 50 votes for account, any abuse of this would be somewhat limited. It's also already in the existing code for witness voting.

Abuse is one issue, it's not difficult to create mass alts as we all know, proxy to one of them, then mass upvote the main account increasing its rep.

The main issue I see as I mentioned in my other comment is this project is about personal interaction and appreciation. It doesn't seem right to get other people to do that for you.

Yeah but since it's stake based, I don't think it's that much of an issue. If you split your stake up to multiple accounts, you trade off muting the effect of the rep upvotes for each account. This just saves time. Also, I don't think many people would use it as the effect is only to a small number of accounts, 50.

This proposal shifts the lens from posts to people, amplifying the community’s voice and creates a trend towards community consensus rather than a reliance on whales with big voices.

Proxy goes against what your proposal aims to do and enables users for someone else to voice on their behalf. Surely it cannot be that difficult for one to decide for themselves who they find inspiring, appreciate and want to support? Proxy creates a false reputation because in effect there is only one voice. That brings us back to square zero

Surely it cannot be that difficult for one to decide for themselves who they find inspiring, appreciate and want to support?

Right. So why would they choose to do it? What incentive would they have to use this feature, unless they have alts they want to consolidate?

Proxy creates a false reputation because in effect there is only one voice.

Yes, but the effect is limited to only 50 accounts. So I just don't see the motivation for using the proxying in a malicious way. But if it were to become a problem, it could be easily fixed.

The proxy issue is only an issue if we replace the current system with a hard fork.

This is literally the hardest way to do it (see @borislavzlatanov 's interesting mvp idea), and also not the idea.

Along the way, if we want consolidation of alts, we can add custom json signal to allow a "second layer/reputation proxy", a second decision about whether to proxy "for this".

In your example, the person would trade off the reputation of the main account for the Hive Power of the main account. If they move their hive power back to their main, their reputation score would go back down.

The proxy does not mean automated.
I think the proxy is a good idea. If I see @anderssinho making good use of his votes, I could let him control my votes too (or essentially giving him x amount more votes)

That's the problem. This is supposed to encourage human interaction, connection and appreciate with one another. How can you get someone else to build relationships for you? If a person don't have the time or think it's too much trouble for them to do it, then we have a problem

I see it more like "I like this person more than just a vote, I'll give him/her extra votes".
IMO this should also be confirmed with some interval, like the vote renewal-thing. That way it's being kept real 💯
!BBH

Vote decay, just like it should be fot witness voting imo.

Exactly!!
!BBH

Haha thx for the confidence you have in me, even though I am a crazy swede 🤣

Don't get too high on that, I did say IF 😂

Jokes aside, you do seem like a cool person. Despite the fact you're from the wrong side of Øresund 🤣 (okay, couldn't put the jokes completely away)

Haha 🤣

Yeah totally, I would move to "the right side" in a instant if it wasnt for your language. That shit is impossible 🤣

🤣🤣🤣

Funny, I feel the same. I was actually looking at houses in Sweden some years ago. But honestly, that language.. jävla 😂

What? Our language is piece of cake compare to yours 😅

You guys cant even count like normal people 🤣

My main comment, why can people proxy when this is about human interaction?

I was about to write this same exact comment, but @livinguktaiwan said it sooner and better.

I like the concept of this new rep system, but if people start delegating thier votes to someone else, won't we very soon find ourselves in a situation where very few people will be able to choose who is worthy of a good rep... and who is not? Not sure this is something that aligns with the core idea behind this new rep system.

This is a very interesting idea. I would however not allow for delegation of reputation votes as the whole idea is they are supposed to be based on folks making calls on their own.

I also feel like some amount of clarity on the current system would be beneficial as this is the first time I've seen how it's calculated.

You can see my past posts on reputation at the following link. In my earlier posts, I go over how the current ent system works. I also provide a simple flow chart as well.

https://peakd.com/@moeknows?filter=reputation

As for the proxy voting, we've discussed it on other comments today. It doesn't have to be included, but I'm not sure how it would be used in a malicious manner. As it's effect could only be spread to 50 accounts, I fail to see the incentive to use it other than to consolidate the voting of one's alt accounts. Can you think of another nefarious reason someone might exploit proxy voting?

I don't think it's nefarious as watering down what you're proposal does by making it super easy to artificially inflate things with an alt.

But since it's stake based, does it really matter? If you control both accounts, you would just vote the same in both accounts anyway. Proxying would just make it a little easier and would actually make it impossible to self vote in such a situation.

I really really like this idea.

1 thing I would change/add. The vote falloff fading aspect. It would be cool is once you vote for someone as long as you interact with the blockchain say once a week in any way then your votes do not fade.

So for example. Say a person only plays Crownrend and they have a alliance of 10 members. They don't post on Hive but just play Crownrend. It would be nice for them to be able to vote for their Alliance members and just keep playing the game without having to remember to re-up their votes every so often since all they are into is specific games.

While I love the idea of inactive people having their votes go away over time, I think we also need to be careful about how some Hive people are not like the rest of us who blog/comment/vote every day :)

That is true. I'm sure we could come up with some remedy for that.

Would this be extra on top of the existing or would it replace the current point system thing?
I see pros and cons in both being and extra and replacing, but the idea... absolutely love it!
!BBH !DUO !SLOTH

I didn't mention this very much in the whitepaper, but it is in there under technical implementation.

Rename old reputation formula to something more appropriate.
Options:

  • Content Score
  • Upvotes Score
  • Rewards Score
  • Other community suggestions

I think the current number is useful. It just isn't really reputation. None of my listed suggestions are really correct either, but they are more correct than "reputation" is for that number. The current reputation score is "a representation of the HP weighted qualifying upvotes an account has received", but that's a mouthful. So I think "Content Score" might work the best.

Thanks for your support.

We should make it ROHPWQUAHR for short
That's gonna make it way easier to remember 🤣🤣

Fun aside, maybe ROHPUR score.
Representation of HP, Upvotes received.

Haa! I like it!

Thanks! Have been thinking long and hard about that. Like, 15 years, at least 😅


You just got DUO from @caspermoeller89.
They have 1/1 DUO calls left.
duo_logo
Learn all about DUO here.

I absolutely support this change in the code. It's better in every way from the way things are now.

Thanks!

Thank you! I appreciate your support. I hope it gets considered.

I like it but I would disable any proxy votes.

Yeah, we don't have to implement that part of it.

This could be meaningful to all hivers. It's an encouragement for everyone to make this amazing community continue to prosper❤

almost forgot

!PAKX

View or trade PAKX tokens.

@meno, PAKX has voted the post by @moeknows. (1/1 calls)

Use !PAKX command if you hold enough balance to call for a @pakx vote on worthy posts! More details available on PAKX Blog.

Congratulations @moeknows! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)

You made more than 5000 comments.
Your next target is to reach 5500 comments.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out our last posts:

Our Hive Power Delegations to the April PUM Winners
Feedback from the May Hive Power Up Day
Hive Power Up Month Challenge - April 2025 Winners List

Hmm but what if I know 60 really valuable users? I'm forced to leave some out of the vote... And what if I see 10 people spamming trash or whatever else? I'm forced to pick the 3 worse... I feel it has very limitations

Unless you tell me that's daily votes one can give

You can still support people via upvotes and still discourage spammers via downvotes.

Also, the numbers could be changed if it became a problem. We've talked about this with @ecoinstant and it would be an easy change to tweak the numbers.

What about a mix of the actual system and this? 1 only value made of this+actual system, just because one person can end up always with reputation 1 if he doesn't have any supporter and that's not very encouraging for onboarding

I think we would have to see how it works first. I suggested renaming the old system but keeping it. You should see the idea that @meno @buttcoins @ecoinstant and others came up with. A Hive flower where every petal is a different metric. It's a cool idea.

Interesting. I like new approaches like this, have reblogged it so that more people can look at it.

Maybe I missed it, but do you get a total of 50 votes / 3 downvotes or do they renew after a certain time?

It would work similar to witness voting so as long as you are active, the votes would stay.

Okay, I understand. But I have to say I don't know if I like it that much.

With the Witness Votes, I generally find that almost only the big ones get the attention. I'm worried that it would be the same here.

And there's another point that I've noticed myself. I made my Witness Votes once and then never really changed or checked them again. I think many others feel the same way. I don't know if that would be such a good thing.

I think we have to try it out. With witness votes, there is a reason to vote the status quo. With reputation, I think you would be more likely to vote your friends and accounts you respect. I know I wouldn't feel compelled to spend one of my 50 votes on those with very high reps, unless they were people I respect and I didn't have anyone else in mind.

ETA: Also with witness votes, you can vote for yourself.

PIZZA!

$PIZZA slices delivered:
@danzocal(3/10) tipped @moeknows

Come get MOONed!