The provision of value can instill entitlement in many for what outcome arises finds us scaling things to see if it fits our expectations. If returns ascend over what we expect then it becomes part of luck and quite easily accepted and when it fails to appease us then we rebel and become sentimental forgetting that most things are in fact beyond our control.
The moment output involves the collaboration of more people for a result then what comes back as reward should be anticipated with an open mind in order not to project our sole sense of what should be on to others.
This leads us down the wrong path because the only thing you have control over is what you do and not what others do or say. The systems we operate under have their say when it comes to what's acceptable or not and they can at times apply to composers more than consumers and even those restrictions can only go as far.
Anticipation can lead to foolery and qualify a vague perception to what isn't.
Taking Hive as an example with its reward procurement during the span of one week, we realise that it only takes seven days to reap and assertain what can be obtained besides the ongoing availability of the content. This can further stifle the need to engage as a consumer ayond a week with the production of more contents fostering the fastening of some for visibility and it becomes a necessity for those deemed to be essential as some are manually embedded into new contents in the form of links as reference mostly familiarized with communities.
Moreover, it can be noticed that most of the curation (rewards) tends to take place in the early stages after publication (the first few days) as oppose to that of Web2's continuous revenue-sharing system.
What does this tell us?
Hive encompasses marking our presence with imminence for any form of tangible growth.
Decentralisation has it that a lone entity doesn't call the shots. When need be, there's hierarchy nestling the capability to coerce therefore hindrance would likely be self generating. Remember that to have a say has its effects but has its boundaries too.
Nonuniform votes (rating)
Emoticons out this is weighty business so match the setting.
It's impossible for anyone to come up with something that everyone else resonates with talk less of having an impartiality in a given subject.
Percentages could be granted based on resource volumes and while some set their votes on auto for certain authors, upvotes/downvotes serve as consumer ratings. The imparity is ever present as an expression of how contents are perceived by different people serving as symbolic expressions besides written expressions in comments.
In Web2, there's almost no way your like outweighs mine in a particular content unless you're an influencer driving in more followers, your thumbs up equals mine. The deal is having more of them in numbers over time plus the comical fact that even an accidental click view within few seconds counts and those may not matter much here.
So expecting parity in a system like this would make you subject to a woeful Web3 experience.
This has a sticking or detaching effect where these experiences meddle with our individual thoughts hence arousing us to reassess and act accordingly.
Lastly, while hit and run prospects may not be wrong it hardly gives appreciating yields that lasts with respect to accumulation.
So it's wise to be receptive and willing to stay when things are suddenly going in a different direction.
