— VerifyYourBrain

zedikaredirect 3 years ago

Interesting and makes sense although i don't understand everything it could involve, possibly also moves rep up ? if more money was needed it could just be increased, agreed.

I supported this proposal in the beggining as a way to stabilize the HBD, there is a big part of the comunity that will / would support this idea because of having a backed dollar coin which was listed since steemit, but there was no code to support it, there was an account there doing this experiment before the fork, because it was created with a low supply it's weird.

How would it work ? I don't know, most fiat pegged coins out there have way more supply which makes it more logic for the coin to be worth less and control or mantain the 1$ value, the backed dollar coin from steemit and hive has a lower supply than the native coin, i agree that this "stabilizer" doesn't seem a good solution long term, but it's out of my reach to sugest anything and i don't know if there are solutions being worked on.

This argument of overrewarding, like by what criteria ? India, USA, Europe, Russia, China ? And what about the matrix of withdrawl, is the user withdrawing every month or did he became a millionaire by holding, and why or what is bad ? There doesn't seem to be a criteria defined. Mostly it seems attacks on independent journalism and tought.

PS: Just to sum up that basically the coin will rocket up if there is no "stabilizer", just like SBD is now.

PS2: That is an amazing project hivealive and it brings truth to light

smooth 3 years ago

Everyone who uses their voting power (10 votes per day) earns the same curation rewards, except for being downvoted or late votes (after 24 hours).

This didn't used to be the case, but now all you get for curation rewards is a mostly-fixed ROI for participating in using your stake to direct where rewards go rather than being completely passive.

1.40 VYB

5 votes

informationwar 3 years ago

Why not just ask for 10k more per day in funding proposal instead of getting 10k from upvoted comments tho?

0.19 VYB

blocktrades 3 years ago

Because voting for the stabilizer is also a way to fund the DHF itself more (unlike a proposal).

1.16 VYB

informationwar 3 years ago

So lets say that the proposal was getting 67k daily and is getting like 10k daily from upvotes on comments.

Is there a reason for why the proposal can't ask for 77k? I am assuming there is some sort of hard cap that one account can ask for maybe, or that the voters decided 67k is enough and others still want to continue so they upvote comments?

1.17 VYB

smooth 3 years ago

The DHF has a limited amount of funds (which voting for the comments increase, as @blocktrades told you).

There is a cap on the total DHF budget. As I indicated in my other comment, the stabilizer has consistently maxed it out. The comment rewards are in addition, to supplement DHF funds, not instead.

1.17 VYB

blocktrades 3 years ago

The only hard cap on the DHF is that only 1% of the total amount can be spent daily, so a proposal could ask for 77K HBD/day right now. But such a proposal would be functionally different from voting on the comments: a proposal that funds the stabilizer would only increase the DHF funds to the extent that the stabilizer makes a profit (because the base amount from the proposal is just recycled back to the DHF and only the profit gets added). Voting on the comments increases the amount of DHF funds much more directly.

I realized the above might not be clear enough, so I've added some example numbers. Let's assume that the hbdstabilizer is profiting at 0.1% per day right now (this is just a hypothetical number for the sake of an example, profits for hbdstabilizer vary a lot depending on HBD market pricing and I don't know what the current profit percentage is). An extra 10K per day as a proposal would then add 10K HBD * .1% = 10 HBD profit to the DHF. Compare this to 10K HBD added via voting on the hbdstabilizer comments, and you can see it's a dramatic difference (1000x more).

1.16 VYB

informationwar 3 years ago

Thanks for the response. I missed all of the posts explaining these things

smooth 3 years ago

The DHF is very limited. We're already close to maxed out on the DHF budget for hdbstabilizer (we were literally maxed out 100% for months until recently but now a few hundred below and could use another proposal, which I will do when I get a chance).

0.00 VYB

bobthebuilder2 3 years ago

I've read many of the comments. I'm thankful for all the back and forth. It creates transparency, taking this past from a five alarm fire to, "oh, that's what's going on." Thank you for speaking up and out... to everyone, really. It helps flush everything out.

frankbacon 3 years ago

Here 👆 herE

0.00 VYB

kennyskitchen 3 years ago

Why not just ask for 10k more per day in funding proposal instead of getting 10k from upvoted comments tho?

My guess = because that doesn't have 50% curation rewards.

0.02 VYB

smooth 3 years ago

As stated elsewhere, it doesn't matter what someone votes for in terms of curation, as long as it isn't being heavily downvoted. Curation rewards are just for participation. Once you factor in someone's stake, their curation rewards are largely fixed, as long as they bother to vote.

If you don't like this, you'll need more downvoting so curation rewards actually reflect voting in accordance with stakeholder consensus on the best use for rewards. I'm all in favor of that, as you know.

1.23 VYB

kennyskitchen 3 years ago

And as I've stated in response many times, and nobody has addressed, the big difference is that by voting on content, stake is decentralized because half goes to the authors, while in this case y'all are able to maintain your 50% curation, AND keep the rest by sending it all to the "fund," where just a couple accounts (the ones upvoting these spam comments) decide how it's rewarded.

It's just self-voting with extra steps.

2.07 VYB

8 votes

smooth 3 years ago

That's not correct.

First, it isn't true that only a few accounts decide where DHF funds go. If you look at the level of voting necessary to fund something, it is far more than a few accounts. It takes 29 million HP to fund anything, and the largest account is 15 million and it drops off quickly from there. There has never been a DHF proposal approved by only a few accounts and there likely never will. It is always a broad swath of stakeholders voting.

Second if you look at the where the DHF funds are going none of them support the or even benefit the largest stakeholders, with the possible exception of one that is supporting the SPK network (I'm not an expert on what this does and I don't vote for it). They're all supporting developers, community projects, or platform resources (such as Keychain or HiveSQL) in a very clear way. Notably, the largest voter (@blocktrades) probably also spends the most supporting the platform (including much of the core development, and running the servers), and hasn't even gotten funding from the DHF for it.

In no way is any of this self-voting. The necessity of DHF proposals to clear the hurdle of the return proposal makes self voting MUCH harder and less likely (and much, much less frequent in practice), compared to the post voting where self-voting or circle voting or vote trading is trivial, and only sometimes (rarely in practice) inhibited by downvotes.

1.16 VYB

ura-soul 3 years ago

First, it isn't true that only a few accounts decide where DHF funds go

I just skimmed through the voters on the active proposals and many of them are there because of votes from less than 10 accounts. Some of them might be there anyway due to attracting lots of smaller votes. I don't really have full data on the decentralisation of the proposal voting - I might add it to Hive Alive when I get time.

It's certainly true that my perception of the worker pool is based on information from earlier in Hive's journey - at that time it was exactly as I described, nothing got in without a small number of whales voting for it.

ura-soul 3 years ago

I essentially agree with this. I don't know how deliberate this outcome is and I don't think @blocktrades exactly needs more cash to the extent that they would shut down opportunities for developers - HOWEVER, at least based on historic outcomes, I haven't ever even planned to launch a proposal in Hive because the main gatekeepers to which proposals get funded seem to be operating in a centralised/cliquey way. Perhaps I am wrong and we are only ever seeing a snapshot of a situation via posts online. This is part of why regular video chats are so essential and so missing on Hive - from what I've seen. It's very easy to fill in the gaps with our imagination and reach wrong conclusions when all we see of some people is a few paragraphs of text.

In any case, I don't think having the author rewards pool returned to the proposals pool in a way that bypasses witness consensus is in the spirit of how Hive is designed. Granted, stakeholders have the ability to do that, but it definitely does seem off.

1.31 VYB

5 votes

smooth 3 years ago

In any case, I don't think having the author rewards pool returned to the proposals pool in a way that bypasses witness consensus is in the spirit of how Hive is designed

There is nothing in the "spirit of how Hive is designed" (or Steem before) that is contradictory with posts being voted to support development work, marketing, promotions, platform resources, or other such efforts. The original Steem white paper discusses "subjective proof of work" where stakeholders vote to allocate funding to "work", the determination of the value of which is entirely subjective, including examples of supporting charities or political agendas. It was never and was never intended to be only about content.

Prior to the DHF, voting individual post payouts was the only way of funding such efforts. The DHF adds another mechanism to handle these sorts of things (with a significant benefit being that it is easier to define a specific budget and payment schedule for a project, as opposed to the rather erratic way that post payouts do, both of which were recognized as major logistical obstacles with funding larger or longer term efforts through posts), but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with using the original method to fund these things, including by sending that through the DHF (and thereby gaining access to the budgeting and payment scheduling system).

1.29 VYB