I've resigned myself to the fact that financial incentives will inevitably lead to people seeking shortcuts to the rewards, but I still believe we can refine the protocols in place to make it harder for the more cynical among us to ruin the fun for everyone else. Likewise, I feel the approach of "we all have our part to play", is not enough, nor should it be expected to be. Meritocracy is worth fighting for, on both levels.
I'm a bit behind the curve when it comes to the various recent controversies, forks, cliques and witch-hunts in the STEEM/HIVE world, but you couldn't blame anyone for not keeping up, nor for growing fatigued with all of that stuff, and craving to go back to basics: Make content. Engage. Enjoy.
The emergence of communities has been something worth paying attention to. Not only can we home in on subjects that interest us more, but it gives us the opportunity to build real relationships, and just like in the real world, we can have different social circles based around different interests. Communities also allow us to block out some of the noise, at least in theory, assuming the admins pay enough attention.
I wonder how "spammers" feel about it all. I put that in inverted commas as I'm aware of the very grey area between pure plagiarism and original, valuable content. One the one hand, it's harder to blow in to a community and bluff ones way into a position of influence, but on the other hand, the structure of Hivers (Hivians?) blog pages now allow them to post on a lot of communities without ostensibly appearing to be "spammy" without a little extra digging. OK, just one click, but still.
I'm interested to hear peoples thoughts on this. Has the emergence of communities made your experience with STEEM/HIVE better? Do you think quality original content (be it educational or entertaining) gets the attention and reward it deserves? What can be done to improve things, on the protocol level by devs, and on a practical and social level by the wider community?
Image courtesy of Pexels.com
