Social rewards have been the core function of this chain since leaving PoW. Replacing the core design function with a fundamentally different design would be a switch from everything we've been as a community and is the abandonment of a strong working project.
What makes you think this is a strong working project?
And why do you think moving social rewards predominantly to the application layer is an "abandonment" of that? Did you not run a tokenized second layer interface? Is LEO Finance not successfully doing that now?
If we had smart contracts and SMTs, this could more easily be done. Nothing is abandoned. Then we can focus our energy on development where we actually have experience instead of on social media where we clearly have none.
The near 10,000 DAU and 1M+ transactions/24hours is a good indicator of a strong working project to me. Why do you think it's not?
The abandonment is that of issuing rewards via social consensus. If you remove the layer 1 rewards then you are insinuating that it was a failed attempt. Why would that inspire any hope for layer 2 tokens?
If I'm being honest then I would say that attempts to remove social rewards are an attempt at removing the meritocracy of Hive. Instead of doing what everyone has done for the last 4 years of maintaining, or even growing, your account by the merits of interacting on Hive staking rewards activists want to just be paid because they hold the token.
LEO, while an amazing project, has not surpassed Hive yet nor will they likely do that. Hive has a $43m market cap while LEO only comes in around $1m. If LEO continues to grow it will force growth on Hive at the same time maintaining Hive's marketcap advantage.
The reason it's the core of disagreement is because it's the token people actually want. Those same behaviors will exist within subgroups when those communities have enough market participants to seek to hold their position as we see on the base chain. That being said disagreement is good and is a sign people are interested enough to stand for something.
Social rewards have been the core function of this chain since leaving PoW. Replacing the core design function with a fundamentally different design would be a switch from everything we've been as a community and is the abandonment of a strong working project.
What makes you think this is a strong working project?
And why do you think moving social rewards predominantly to the application layer is an "abandonment" of that? Did you not run a tokenized second layer interface? Is LEO Finance not successfully doing that now?
If we had smart contracts and SMTs, this could more easily be done. Nothing is abandoned. Then we can focus our energy on development where we actually have experience instead of on social media where we clearly have none.
The near 10,000 DAU and 1M+ transactions/24hours is a good indicator of a strong working project to me. Why do you think it's not?
The abandonment is that of issuing rewards via social consensus. If you remove the layer 1 rewards then you are insinuating that it was a failed attempt. Why would that inspire any hope for layer 2 tokens?
If I'm being honest then I would say that attempts to remove social rewards are an attempt at removing the meritocracy of Hive. Instead of doing what everyone has done for the last 4 years of maintaining, or even growing, your account by the merits of interacting on Hive staking rewards activists want to just be paid because they hold the token.
Too bad the market disagrees with you.
LEO is a good example how second layer works and can surpass the native token.
The global reward pool is the core of reward disagreement and behaviours that harm the network.
LEO, while an amazing project, has not surpassed Hive yet nor will they likely do that. Hive has a $43m market cap while LEO only comes in around $1m. If LEO continues to grow it will force growth on Hive at the same time maintaining Hive's marketcap advantage.
The reason it's the core of disagreement is because it's the token people actually want. Those same behaviors will exist within subgroups when those communities have enough market participants to seek to hold their position as we see on the base chain. That being said disagreement is good and is a sign people are interested enough to stand for something.
Posted using Dapplr