After writing this, I have come to discover that everything on hive comes with an upside and some with a downside.
Being a constant voter might be rewarding but the consequence is that your vote weight is constantly declining if you're not taking the time to let it recover it's easier said than done.
For example, when you're an under-curator, you miss out on validating your affirmation that a post or an author is deserved of curation and when you're an ouver-curator, your vote weight suffers because you curate faster than your voting recovers and you cannot give authors the full depth of your vote weight.
This is always the problem with voting, curators often manage to stick to a healthy percentage, because going under would be dangerous.
On hive the difference between being an over-curator or an under-curator is your presence or absence on the chain,
....sometimes it's just the love of being a curator, or just the joy that comes with curation rewards. When my activities drop may be due to an illness, it affects almost everything, and most times, a lot of people would notice this.
Those periods are healthy because they help boost my voting power by over 90% and keep me refreshed for when I'm back to my usual activities.
It's like keeping a phone switched on forever and never get to switch it off. When you do, it increases functionalities and this is also applicable to hive as well.
Hive is "win-win"
It's built to be win-win because there has to be a balance of incentive with the person who's giving and the one who is taking, this probably creates the need for the giver to keep giving, and the taker to offer something different, or even go ahead to become a giver in the process.
I guess this is the main reason why curators were given 50% of the cut, because most times, we underestimate the deservedness of the giver.
There has to be a cycle of effectiveness that makes everything clicks and all the components seem to function well. When it comes to curation, I value the input of an author in form of networking more than their content.
This is mostly because I think hive isn't about content alone.
How so?
Social impact and promotion, availability, stability, and intentions often matter a lot. So sometimes, I try to play my role as well as I can.
While a few others will fight over things that do not matter, it's important to understand that, there are people who believe in growing the chain more than subduing the userbase who are already there, by bickering disagreement.
There are ways to see value beyond content. For example, I spotted a user who is always on every thread I open on Twitter, talking about hive, so I followed his account and started supporting him.
It wasn't the content, it was the intent. It signals that we mostly should let go of the content value and focus on inputs that are unique and valuable, but not to meander too much.
I also try as much as possible to curate the post of almost everyone who engages on my post, even if I don't follow them, based on how I deem them fit.
Something exciting I picked up is to curate introductory posts shared by the users I follow, sometimes I leave comments on these intro posts just to encourage the creator, but sometimes, I notice that these users don't build follow-up conversations with comments on their posts, that's not always an issue, because I know it's mostly how it is on Facebook and Instagram.
What I'm trying to say is that people become over-curators by not setting a limit
In an actual sense, one might set a limit but mess it up in the end.
There are no real solutions to limit over-curation unless something unplanned happens, takes you off the chain, and relapses your activities on the chain.
These are possible scenarios, but we cannot prevent over-curation unless we want to noticeably reduce the way we curate, bring down the numbers, and all that.
This is because over time, curation becomes a habitual thing, and one is wired to curate in a particular manner. But change is good sometimes, except that the voting weight is constantly depending on the level of increase to your voting power and there are more people to curate each day than there was the previous day.
I mentioned this earlier.
As the days, months, and years go by. You'll follow more people, and meet more exciting people and this will reflect on your voting power. You'll add more people to your auto and this would mean more pressure or relapse and the continuous adjustment of your voting behavior.
The Influx Of New Demand
I sometimes feel that the influx of more people/users will create the demand for more voting power, this is why I encourage people to at least grow their hive power, keep it in the system and stand better chances of even growing than they did when they were not growing.
This way, there wouldn't be a disparity among the levels of stake owners.
Plus, users flocking through the ranks wouldn't need to be dependent on whales at all times. They can get the regular 2 cents and accumulate them over time, without having to 100% need the whales.
This is the importance of having a staking and growing economy.
Hive is stake-based
.....and people want to keep the value in the system, hence, the reason why the value will go to those who are keeping or are willing to keep the value in the system.
I don't think I'll ever maintain a stable vote weight and percentage, except in the near future if I manage to significantly increase my stake somehow.
It's possible, I'm not selling myself short. But I'll need one good bull market and a receding bear market to see if I'll get there. Thank you. CIAO
Interested in some more of my works?
Reviewing A $400 Samsung Galaxy A72 (photos Included)
Hive's Scalability & The Compromise Of Commitments
Money: The Consequences Of Making The Right & Wrong Decisions
The Nigerian Economy: Monopolizing Incompetence
The Experiential Process of Understanding Money
A Case Of Theft On Hive: Here's Why Some People Choose Scam.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
