Climb the ladder and build better

As my voting power regenerates, I have been taking the opportunity to think about what kind of content is valuable to Hive - does anyone really know?

I know that I don't, but I also do know what I am willing to pay for in other areas of my life. For example, I have never been much of a magazine reader, because I felt that for the most part, what I got out of it wasn't worth the money I spent on it. However, this is also skewed by the fact that the internet came along offering much of the same for free - hiding the costs in advertising revenues and data sales.

Remember that much of the content for the consumer online is for free, which is why exclusive content runs at a premium. While there might not be the demand on the kinds of content that appears on blockchains, the rule still holds true, which is why exclusive Hive content is more valuable than anything that is posted across multiple platforms.

The content that appears on other centralized media for no reward is also low value, because it largely appears there for free too, as most of the user generated content isn't paid for by the platform. People get confused when they think their content is worth something there, it isn't. What is worth it for the platform is user attention and network access, meaning that eyes for advertisements and a network that can be leveraged with the support of social proofing for more advertising attention.

But, do we want the same on Hive?

Do we really want to create a blockchained and decentralized version of other social platforms and the internet we have currently, or do we want to develop something different, something that is valuable to us, even if there are no advertisement sales to be made?

It is something to think about, but when I consider the value of content on Hive, I also consider what I find valuable socially, interaction, collaboration, friendship, common good and goals and a sense of looking to make the world better in some way, even if just slightly. For example, while everyone has their ups and downs, the people who are constantly negative, are not going to have my attention for long.

But as an investor into Hive and the future, understanding that it is going to require a lot of diversity in approach to accomplish even half of the potential it carries, I have to look at other aspects as well. For example, regardless of content "quality or effort" if the account that is delivering it is behaving in ways I consider negative or detrimental to the overall improvement of the community, I am not going to give them my vote.

Why would I? Why would I, a whale or the smallest minnow give any value to anyone they thought is harmful to something they are investing into? Sure, there is a lot of personal preference in this, but that is the value of having stake - it comes down to personal preference on how to use it.

When it comes to downvotes, it is the same thing of course and people can use them as they choose and however they choose, but I think most people have the understanding that personal preference is one thing, but since no one can be completely sure of what adds or subtracts value, people are often less keen to move rewards down, leaving plenty of room for diversity.

But, diversity is one thing, but there are other aspects too. A lot of people think you shouldn't downvote because you don't agree with the content, but if one truly thinks the content is harmful to the wellbeing of the platform or participants on the platform - why wouldn't they downvote? Do you let some key your car or throw rocks and your house windows?

What is harmful to the platform and the investment is going to depend on preference but it isn't always clear. For example, I don't mind accounts selling some Hive, but I prefer them to power up more than they power down. Also, I don't mind high earners selling their earnings either, but I don't like the same people complaining about not getting supported on the platform when they have no Hive to support others.

It personally annoys me when people feel they are entitled to extract much more than they input - even if the content they create might be good, if they are earning highly and selling all their HIVE and are therefore demonstrating they are unwilling to support other good content, screw them. This platform allows people to get paid for their content and use their earnings to continually pay others for theirs, while still earning a residual on that payment - yet many people feel that they don't have to add to the value of content mechanisms, even though they are wanting to take themselves and complaining about not being able to take enough.

As I have posited several times earlier no doubt, quality of content doesn't just come down to the post, it is a collection of values that create an account profile. There are things like content, topic, quality, use, applicability, entertainment and the like. But there are also things like engagement, attitude, stake, community support, behavior, manners and overall personality. It is about behavior.

The behavior of an account is not limited to posting and voting behavior or how they speak to people, but all of these things make up a model that makes people feel whether what is being offered is valuable or not. Behave in ways that make people feel bad or make them believe that what you are doing is detrimental for what they believe is good for the platform, and don't get support.

Accounts that have earned a lot espousing the benefits of the platform and then have powered down to nothing and support no one, are unlikely to be seen as valuable for the future of the platform. Why would any business owner hire people who believe that their business is a failure and has no future? They wouldn't, would they?

Yet, here we all are on Hive as business owners - well those of us that have some stake. And stake is important, because not only is this a dPOS platform, but it signifies percentage ownership. Make no mistake, even those with some stake, we are not all equal partners on Hive, as people have very different levels of skin in the game as well as expectations and hopes for the future of Hive.

The validity of two voices aren't the same on Hive because of this, in the same way that if you have cancer, you are probably likely to listen to an oncologist's advice on how to treat it than your car mechanic's. Stake doesn't indicate knowledge, but at least it gives an indication as to behavior for the future - the people with no skin in the game and have nothing to lose? They are much like those faceless trolls on Twitter - their views can't be trusted.

I find many people and parts of Hive valuable, but I probably obviously also value the discussion around Hive that aims toward making it a better place for the community to enjoy. I think that this is something that I enjoy in crypto in general too, because I am hoping for a better economy at a global level, and I am hoping that Hive can be part of that improved profile.

It doesn't mean that every post or discussion has to be about Hive, but I think one of the problems in the world economy now is that not enough people take part in discussions about it, other than to complain that they do not feel included enough in it. Discussion helps with literacy and understanding and if we want to build a community here or anywhere that is knowledgeable and willing to take responsibility and action, it is going to take participation in the conversation.

I approach this conversation a little differently to other people on Hive perhaps, but it is about building that diversity of content that adds to the discussion toward a better a Hive, a stronger community and more successful individuals. Like quality of content, success can be measured in many ways too. What is your experience with success? What content did you put into your life to be where you are today?

All of these questions and more are interrelated and can be explored on Hive, so why not explore how to make life better, here?

Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ]