I am not sure how I am meant to organize my day, as normally I am relatively scheduled and have a pretty good idea of what I am meant to be doing. The problem today however is, I have a training to be held with a location in New Zealand, which means that I am going to be starting the session at 10 PM my time, as they are 11 hours ahead. It isn't a long session as it has been split into two parts and I will hold the other next week, but I have to be in the office for it.
The challenge is that the day is kind of like a 6/10 split, as I have meetings in the morning with people in Finnish time, some in the afternoon with people in the US for their morning and then, the graveyard session in the evening. All up, it is effectively an eighteen hour work day, as even though there are gaps between, the gaps aren't really large enough to do anything of consequence. This makes it a bit of a write-off.
So far, I have spent a few minutes looking at the price of Hive wondering when exactly I am able to quit my job, but it looks more likely that I will be working about 20 years over my death. Well, this is actually not that far fetched if we consider that passive revenue streams do not have to end at the end of life, they can be passed on as an inheritance. I am hoping that eventually, my crypto assets will be of the kind that will benefit my family across generations and even if it isn't much, it could be something that they could use as a steady income source.
I was thinking about this in terms of evergreen content the other day and I was wondering if there will come a time that content on Hive will be able to earn past the normal payout window. Would it make sense to have the window on an open and close schedule, where after close it reopens for another week so that more votes can stack on top? I think this would be interesting as it would allow for useful content that has appeal over time to not only keep earning, but gather a mass of support and interaction.
Another thing that I was wondering is if it is possible to instead of having the post open, could the vote be open instead - where each vote will payout after 7 days to the author and curator. This would mean that there would be no reason to have the post open or close at all and perhaps the sorting mechanisms for popularity could become more sensitive - as there could be posts that are popular for longer or, old posts that are unearthed later due to them becoming relevant for some reason.
This last one would require changes in the curation numbers in a similar way to what LeoFinance have done by having flat curation, rather than the stacking of votes, which I think has been proven pretty ineffective and more of a hindrance to content discovery, especially since it is most beneficial for automated voters. Flattening means that it doesn't matter when an account votes, all voters will get the same percentage reward, which I think is a far easier system for most people to understand and we should be developing for most people. I have never been a curation optimizer, but I think that too many people get stuck trying to optimize their stake through curation, rather than trying to build a better platform through curation.
What I am interested in over time with the LEO experiment however is, what it will do to the active period of posts, as since there is no reason to vote early as there is no punishment to vote late, it could mean that people will explore a little further down the list, rather than pouring votes on in the first hour or so. This could also mean that ordering of posts can be changed to better reflect the posts that are important to the community for more days, which gives incentive for creators to produce content that is valuable for a longer period of time and likely, better quality. This would take time to adjust as most people will still have all of their autos set for a while to come.
Yet, this is the value of having layer-two tokenization and independence from layer one, as it means that experiments can be run that could inform new tokenized experiences and help refine process for both developers and endusers. This can lead to simplification and robustness, which would hopefully also attract investors.
Curation is an integral part of Hive, but I do think that the curation auctioning adds complexity and draws attention without returning a great deal of value to the average user. Yes, some people will earn a fair bit more percentage wise with their stake, but the cost of doing so could be that the social aspects that drive value of the community get ignored. As I have always said, the value of Hive is the community, but some of the technical aspects of Hive are catered for people who are uninterested in building it, yet are still wanting the price to increase.
Thinking that a lot of Hive is already quite manual in nature, it would be good to remove the complexity that can be a barrier of entry into the ecosystem, as people feel that they are "missing out" or it isn't "fair" because they don't understand the mechanisms in play. I think that curation is one of the areas that should be heavily simplified, as even many long-term users do not understand how it works.
As for evergreen content that can build attentional mass over time, there is currently very little incentive to create it, as there is no reward past seven days for either the author or the curator. I occasionally get shares and comments on posts that are a couple of years old as people have found them through a browser search, but there is no gain in that for me or them. Perhaps if there was, the discussion on posts would be more like on YouTube, where posts over a decade old are still attracting comments and interaction, as they come in and out of public awareness and are shared across social platforms.
The ability on Hive to add value directly to an author and earn on consumption is the future of Web 3.0, and we should be doing all in our power to leverage it in the marketing processes. But, it shouldn't be difficult to explain. 50% curation is 50% curation - if your vote is 10 cents, the curation return is 5 cents. This is a far easier approach and sell than the complexity of the 5 minute auction window and the even more complex vote stacking algorithms in play.
While I am hoping that HF25 focuses more heavily on social aspects rather than tweaking reward mechanisms, I think that it is vital to explore how the reward mechanisms affect social interaction, as we all act on incentive and on hive, the reward is a huge part of that incentive and there is no point denying it. Perhaps early on, the complexity made a game of it for many technical users to innovate and explore things like automation, but with so many games in play now, including actual games, simplification of the economics would likely have a net positive effect on the user experience as a whole.
Well, I don't know if what I created in this slot of time is of consequence, but it might be valuable to someone, somewhere.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]