10 of 20 are for 20%, so 20% apparently it is. Even if only 8 would be for 20%, but the 12 are unsure about 5, 10 or 15, I guess it would still be 20% then? Let´s assume an extreme case: only 5 would vote for 20% but all other %ages have even less votes. Would it still be 20% then or an average %age?
I am afraid that the Top20 don´t speak regularly & formally, just small subgroups of them and only informally. Would love to get pleasantly surprised here. An official meeting report here on the blockchain, that would be an achievement!
The HBD APY is set based on the median of the Top 20. The median is by definition the MIDDLE value. It is not an average. The purpose of taking a median is to keep the extreme values from exerting undue influence.
When taking the median of an even number of values, there is no single middle value, so the median is calculated as the average of the two middle values.
So, if 10 of the Top 20 witnesses voted for 20%, 1 vote for 10%, and 9 voted for 5%, the median would be 15% (the average of the two middle values, 20% and 10%). The average would be 12.75%.
Similarly, if 9 voted for 100%, 1 voted for 20%, 1 voted for 10%, and 9 voted for 5%, the median would still be 15% (the average of the two middle values, 20% and 10%). The average would be 48.75%.
It's actually the median of the 21 active witnesses (top 20 plus one dynamic backup). That's why the rate has been fluctuating between 19% and 20%. The top 20 are exactly divided between 20% and 19% as a median, meaning the backup is the tie breaker.
Thanks for the clarification on that.
Thanks, was not aware that the median applies. In any case, I am all in for 20% and whoever also is for 20% should vote his/her witnesses accordingly.
I was also not aware that the median but I actually took the HDB subject also to talk about lack of communication.
And let me reply here to your other comment.
Top witnesses are there for some reason, because community vote, great part vote in more than one in top 20, so if I vote in 7 or 8 on top it was nice to know their generic opinions about Hive but also if they have complementary opinions together.
Or Hive is a community, and I think it should be, or it's every man for himself, and I think without community there are no future.
There are more centralization right now in DHF and how 3 stakeholders are able alone to approve proposal than meetings with all top witnesses, would strengthen the community, benefit strategic alignments and surely contribute to the emergence of new ideas. Many brains thinking and discussing ideas is always better than each one on it's way.
And in some aspects, like marketing, we surely should be more centralized (all involved in one unique strategy) because because 10 poor marketing strategies is never better than 1 good marketing approach.
There is no way to address this problem, other than to improve the overall coin distribution.
With DHF funding, if a large stakeholder doesn't like a given proposal, there are 2 ways the large stakeholder can use their stake to keep it from being funded -- [1] don't vote for it and [2] vote for the return proposal.
With witness voting, there are innumerable ways a large stakeholder can unilaterally diminish (i.e. punish) a disfavored witness. By unvoting witnesses that the large stakeholder would otherwise support, but who already have enough funding to be in the Top 20, the large stakeholder can throw all their support behind the 30 witnesses who would (without that support) be just behind the disfavored witness, effectively pushing the disfavored witness down the list by 30 places. And, by dividing up their stake (via multiple accounts), the large stakeholder could conceivably push a disfavored witness down the list even more.
I am not saying any large stakeholders are actually doing this. My point is that the current system allows this kind of abuse, and thus should be reformed.
Ah, yes, but wouldn't 2 good and 8 poor (relatively small) marketing strategies be better than 1 big (but poor) marketing strategy?
Good centralization is good. Bad centralization is bad. The problem occurs when the stakeholders disagree about what approach is good and what approach is bad.
Whereas witnesses are meant to represent the community, I would greatly prefer to see witnesses reaching out to community members for input and ideas rather than having them merely talking amongst themselves.
Or, having various members of the community hosting town-hall type discussions, and letting the witnesses weigh in with their particular views, so that the members of the community can be better informed about which witnesses to vote for. (Maybe that's what you're talking about here? If so, then I am all-in.)
The better was join forces to avoid poor :)
I'm sure you know that but let me be pragmatic, all evolution begins with disagreements, if we all agreed on everything we wouldn't have discovered the wheel yet.
It could be, i'm not saying they should meet in a closed and secret place. We know very little about what they think about a lot of issues related to the chain. conversations between them and with the community will only help us know how to move forward together