I was so impressed that I asked him for permission to repost his comment, and here it is:
After reading your article and the comments, I have come to the (not well thought out) conclusion that there just needs to be more, interconnect ways to play the “hive game”. We need more gamification. I like to think out loud and then get feedback so let me have it.
Game 1: Content Creation (25% of reward pool)
Creators create content and get rewarded with upvotes. To encourage trending author turnover, trending is not based on payout, but other metrics such as lifetime payout, reputation, average recent post payout, etc that make it harder for established authors to keep reaching trending. For instance, if an author has a trail that gives them $50 no matter what they write, they should not get trending for a $51 post. Now if their post is worth $75 (1.5X their average post), that might be trend worthy. The most well known authors don’t need to be on trending anyway. We all see@blocktrades posts.
I also think that there should be post scores that are based on these metrics so content creators can “compete against each other” like a game. There could even be seasons, etc with seasonal rewards from the reward pool much like splinterlands.
Game 2: Content Curation (25% of reward pool)
Get rewarded for voting, but to discourage vote trails and automated voting, have lower rewards for voting on the same author over an extended period of time. We want to reward new good authors so this lower return would take place over say 6 months + so that you can vote on new authors to get them more exposure.
Eventually, you will need to find new authors to get rewarded and this will encourage people to seek them out, but this doesn’t have to happen every day, but at least several times a year. Because more people will be consumers than creators AND because all creators will also be curators, this is an equal size of the pie (25%).
To encourage more rapid curation turnover, maybe curators get to play the creator seasonal game as well. Curators get a seasonal bonus if their authors do well, but there are diminishing returns season to season so you can not just vote for the same three authors.
Game 3: Stake Based Reward (25% of reward pool)
Get rewarded for staking hive. We want investors and people to keep their hive locked up. This is for passive investors. Because content creators and curators also fall into this category, it is also worth 25% of the reward pool.
Game 4: Hive Fund (15% of reward pool)
Get rewarded for developing the blockchain.
Game 5: Hive Governance (10% of reward pool)
Get rewarded for being a witness.
The way I see it is content creators are for people who cannot buy their way into Hive. They are level 1 and have to earn everything they get, but the unique thing about Hive is we give them that opportunity. We want to give them every opportunity to get to level 2, which is content curator. Creators will also be for people who just flat out like to create content like
@theycallmedan. We need to have creator turnover and hive influencers should not overshadow new authors. It would be like Kim Kardashian constantly trending. That would be counterproductive and unnecessary. That is the world be live in at the moment.
Level 2 is the sweet spot, content curator and hive staker. People can buy their way here or earn it with content creation. After they have a decent amount of hive though, these people should more focus on identifying new authors and getting them to level 2. These people can also create content, but it will naturally be harder for them. Their influence will come from finding good authors and voting on governance.
We need to game it up even more.
**Edit: I just brainstormed this post so don't hold me to these percentages, etc.
This sounds like the beginning of a very good like if thought and a more involved way if playing this game, one which incentives activity other than auto-voting the same people repeatedly.
What do you think?
