If I'm understanding it correctly, instead of being rewarded in Hive people will be rewarded in the 2nd layer token of whatever service they happen to be using. Wouldn't that kind of make Hive like Ethereum? Or rather more like EOS because of no transaction fees?
Also how would people get new hive tokens if not through rewards? Would they have to get them on the open market? I figure the result of this would make them extremely expensive. IF people can't buy or acquire Hive, then they no longer have the ability to gain influence. Wouldn't this permanently stratify Hive? Doesn't that put the entire network, including 2nd layer developers at the mercy of a completely insulated group of Hive token bag holders?
I hope I'm understanding this right
Your first question: Correct, it makes HIVE kinda like Ethereum, maybe more EOS from the point that HIVE is the base chain which will connect many other 'chains' with their own commnities, apps and other use cases. The power of HIVE is the 1) enormous fast transaction speed 2) free transactions. Perforctly suited for realtime p2p payment solutions, including the so wanted PoS (point of sales, this can be any thing from web shop, to brick/mortar shop, to bar, to whatever). Any coin that will became a major coin in the future, requires a fast and powerful payment solution. What chain is able to do this? Just a handful. Now its the time to get onto that market.
In my view, we need to change HIVE t not reward content/votes anymore, but people can still earn HIVE, but not through content (posts, comments, voting). We have the proposal system through which any kinda of activity can be rewarded, this includes definitely projects and activities that has nothing to do with writing code. The proposal system needs to be upgraded though, it needs a better governance system, it may need a change to the voting algorithms, it definitely requires a must better way to connect proposal creators and large stakeholders. It shall be easier for good activities to get funded and it shall be less easy to get funds for shitty projects but projects that get the vote of a few whales. Seemingly inner circles shall be transformed into kinda like funding startup (eg accelerator programs) or other activities that supports the growth of the HIVE ecosystem. I also think HIVE shall be distributed to give some income to eg spam fighting service (regardless what 2nd layer token and community it concerns), curator groups (again regardless what 2nd layer token and community it concerns) and other necessary elements to keep 2nd to nlayer social service more or less clean from abuse. Another group I'm thinking of could be community leaders earning in HIVE. Essentially any activity that is good for the entire HIVE eco system or activities that is needed for the social element of the chain. This could all be funded from the proposal system, or we create a new way of getting to HIVE funds for particular tasks like I mentioned.
The worry you have and scenario you describe, are tackled with such approach. HIVE is not meant for a few whales. That said, the problem with a free market, the problem with a low value token is that tomorrow someone can pump 10M$ into HIVE and take over the chain, or become the new number one whale. TO conter this we may need to adopt a mechanism that can control the maximum amount of HIVE a individual can have. This requires ID identification of some sort. This will not fly with our current whales and witnesses, but that doesn't mean this is an option we shall take seriously.
It kinda' sounds like, if we went with this, every dapp will follow the path of D-live, and accept cash payments for in app currency. The only way creators will have access to hive, is if people tip them with in app currency which can then be converted/sold for Hive.
IF creators don't ever get Hive, then what meaningful way could they ever hope to influence the platform? How could they ever become influential enough to have any meaningful impact?
I get the arguments against a free market, though I fear the emerging consequences of an overly regulated one far more, that's why I'm so reluctant to see my only resource and 'power' on this platform stripped away and held by 2nd layer gatekeepers who are beholden to hive stake holders.
I can't shake the feeling that this is a power grab and an attempt to centralize power, even if that isn't the intent, and even if that isn't the desired end goal - it will be the end goal regardless.
I understand where you coming from. Fact is that at this point in time, nobody has real influence, except a couple individuals. We have 42 whale accounts? The number of individuals is less than that, for sure, How much less, I dont know, but considerable less. They have a stake that is around 50% of maybe 40%. So how decentralised is that? And what about our witnesses: 20 of them (well, 21 but 1 is reserve). 20 is not a lot and nobody can guarantee their independence. Nobody thought that a single entity could take the power of a chain, but it did happen. Now people think they are save because STINC and TRON are out, but are we save? I dont think so. I know, this is not a response to your comment, but I just try to voice that the current system irrespective of what HIVE token are distributed to, needs work, massive work to be able to function as one of the top chains.
For a long future ahead of us, I predict by far the majority of social media users is not at all interested in being able to control anything other then their own content. The fact that every stakeholder can vote for witnesses and for proposals is so complex for the average user, they will either not so this, or not become part of our community because of all these complexities. The reality will then be that many users give their votes to some proxy and we all saw what happened about half a year ago. The world is not ready for a fully decentralised ecosystem, I wonder if the world will ever be ready for that.