This image is AI generated, This document, "An In-Depth Analysis of Hive SBI's Multi-Account Architecture for Voting and Resource Management" has been compiled and written with the assistance of an advanced AI model. The AI was provided with information and context to generate the comprehensive analysis presented herein. While the AI has aimed for accuracy and coherence based on its training data and the input provided, it is important to recognize that AI-generated content may occasionally contain inaccuracies or require further verification. This post should be considered a valuable resource for understanding the Hive ecosystem, but it is recommended that readers consult multiple sources and perform their own due diligence for critical decisions or in-depth understanding.
Post reward set to burn!
Short audio version here
This account is managed by 
Hive SBI (HSBI), formerly known as Steem Basic Income (SBI), is a long-standing social experiment on the Hive blockchain. Its primary goal is to offer participants a form of basic income, mainly distributed as regular cryptocurrency rewards generated through upvotes on their content contributions. 1 Originating on the Steem blockchain, the project, along with a significant part of its community, transitioned to the Hive blockchain. The core idea is inspired by universal basic income principles, adapting them to the unique tokenomic environment of a decentralized social blockchain. 3 Participants typically join by sponsoring themselves or others, thereby acquiring "shares" in the system that entitle them to ongoing upvotes.
The operational model of HSBI centers around pooling resources, predominantly vested HIVE tokens known as Hive Power (HP). This collective HP is then utilized to distribute value back to its members. The main method for this value distribution is the automated casting of upvotes on members' posts and comments on the Hive platform. The value from these upvotes contributes to the recipient's potential HIVE and Hive Backed Dollar (HBD) earnings. Evidence of this mechanism is apparent in community activities and contests where "SBI shares" or "SBI points" are offered as prizes, signifying entitlement to these automated upvotes. 5
This report offers a detailed analysis of a specific operational strategy used by Hive SBI: the employment of multiple distinct Hive accounts to manage voting resources and execute its core upvoting function. The analysis will explore what HSBI does with this fleet of accounts, especially concerning voting actions, and delve into the reasons for adopting this multi-account architecture within the specific constraints and mechanics of the Hive blockchain protocol. General Hive concepts, such as Resource Credits and Voting Power, will be explained as necessary context for understanding HSBI's operational model. However, the primary focus remains on the multi-account strategy itself.
Understanding HSBI's multi-account strategy requires a grasp of two key resource management systems native to the Hive blockchain: Resource Credits (RCs) and Voting Power (VP). These systems govern user actions and the value distribution mechanism.
Unlike many blockchains that charge transaction fees in their native token (often called "gas"), Hive utilizes a Resource Credit system, frequently referred to as "mana". 9 Every action on the Hive blockchain—including posting, commenting, voting, transferring funds, claiming rewards, or performing custom operations—consumes a certain amount of RCs. 9 This system aims to provide a "fee-less" user experience, where users transact using a regenerating resource pool rather than expending valuable tokens for every interaction.
RCs regenerate over time, typically replenishing fully over a five-day period. The critical factor determining an account's RC capacity and regeneration rate is its Hive Power (HP)—the amount of HIVE the user has "staked" or vested in the network. Accounts with higher HP possess a larger pool of RCs and regenerate them more quickly, enabling them to perform more actions within a given timeframe. Conversely, accounts with low HP have limited RCs and can quickly exhaust their ability to interact if they perform too many actions too rapidly. 9
This RC system presents a significant operational consideration for applications like HSBI. The core function of HSBI involves casting a potentially vast number of upvotes daily to serve its member base. 1 Each of these votes consumes RCs. A single Hive account, regardless of its HP, has a finite RC pool and a fixed maximum regeneration rate. Consequently, an application performing high-frequency actions like HSBI would inevitably encounter the RC limitations of a single account. Such an account would likely deplete its RCs long before completing its voting obligations for all members, creating a bottleneck that hinders its ability to fulfill its core purpose. This inherent constraint within the Hive protocol necessitates strategic adaptations for high-throughput systems, strongly suggesting why a multi-account approach becomes not just beneficial, but essential for HSBI's operational model.
Separate from RCs, Hive accounts also manage Voting Power (VP). VP determines the influence or "weight" of an account's upvote when distributing rewards. Like RCs, VP regenerates over time, but on a faster cycle—typically restoring approximately 2.4% per hour, leading to a full recharge from 0% to 100% in about two days.
Each time an account casts an upvote at 100% strength, it consumes 2% of its current VP. Users can also cast votes at lower percentages, consuming proportionally less VP. The value of an upvote, in terms of potential HIVE/HBD rewards, is directly proportional to two factors: the voting account's HP and the VP percentage at the moment the vote is cast. A vote cast at 100% VP carries significantly more weight (and potential reward value) than a vote cast at 50% VP by the same account.
This dynamic creates another layer of complexity for HSBI. The project aims to deliver a consistent or meaningful "basic income" value through its upvotes. 1 However, frequent voting rapidly depletes an account's VP. If HSBI were to operate solely from a single account, that account's VP would constantly be drained, progressively reducing the value of each subsequent vote. This would undermine the goal of providing consistent value. Therefore, managing VP effectively is crucial. Distributing voting activity across multiple accounts allows individual accounts more time to regenerate their VP between votes. This strategy enables HSBI to potentially maintain higher average vote values, deliver more consistent rewards, or optimize vote timing across its member base, addressing a challenge distinct from, but related to, RC management.
Analysis of HSBI's on-chain activity and supporting code infrastructure reveals a deliberate multi-account architecture designed to facilitate its operations.
Several Hive accounts have been identified as being directly involved in HSBI operations, primarily through their participation in voting activities or their appearance in payout distributions related to SBI rewards or mentions. The most prominent accounts include:
steembasicincome: Often considered the primary or original account associated with the project. 1sbi2: A secondary account, suggesting a scaling or load-balancing function. 5sbi3: Another account following the numerical naming pattern. 5sbi4: Further extending the pattern, indicating a fleet approach. 5sbi-tokens: An account possibly related to specific token functionalities or interactions within the HSBI ecosystem, though its precise role beyond participating in reward distributions is not explicitly detailed. 5The consistent naming convention (sbi followed by a number) strongly implies these accounts are part of a coordinated system.
Furthermore, examination of the HSBI code repository configuration suggests the existence of distinct management or administrative accounts. The config.json file example within the repository lists accounts like josephsavage and holger80 under a "mgnt_shares" section, associating them with numerical values. 2 These accounts likely represent ownership stakes, control mechanisms, or administrative privileges within the HSBI system, rather than being part of the primary fleet used for executing mass upvotes.
The presence of multiple, numerically named voting accounts (sbi2, sbi3, sbi4) operating alongside the main steembasicincome account points towards a strategy of parallel processing and load distribution. As established, single Hive accounts face inherent limitations in the number of actions (votes) they can perform due to RC constraints and the diminishing value of votes due to VP depletion. By employing multiple accounts, HSBI can significantly increase its overall throughput—the total number of votes it can cast per unit of time. This parallel structure is a standard engineering approach to scaling systems that face per-unit limitations. The multi-account architecture is, therefore, HSBI's core mechanism for achieving the operational scale required to serve a potentially large and active membership base on the Hive blockchain. It allows the system to overcome the transaction limits imposed by the protocol on individual accounts.
The specific function of sbi-tokens remains less clear from the available data, but its name suggests a potential role in managing interactions related to Hive Engine tokens or other tokenized aspects that might be part of the broader HSBI ecosystem. 5
The following table summarizes the key Hive accounts associated with HSBI based on the available information and inferences drawn from their activity and naming conventions.
| Account Name | Observed Activity / Mentioned Role | Inferred Function | Supporting Data |
|---|---|---|---|
steembasicincome | Voting/Payouts; Project mentions | Primary/Original Voting Account | 1 |
sbi2 | Voting/Payouts | Load Balancing/Parallel Voting Account | 5 |
sbi3 | Voting/Payouts | Load Balancing/Parallel Voting Account | 5 |
sbi4 | Voting/Payouts | Load Balancing/Parallel Voting Account | 5 |
sbi-tokens | Voting/Payouts | Token-Related Operations? | 5 |
josephsavage | Listed under mgnt_shares in config | System Administration/Ownership/Control | 2 |
holger80 | Listed under mgnt_shares in config | System Administration/Ownership/Control | 2 |
While the exact proprietary algorithms remain internal to HSBI, the structure of its code repository and the observed behavior of its accounts allow for inferences about its voting mechanics and resource management strategy.
sbi_upvote_post_comment.pyThe HSBI system relies on a suite of Python scripts for automation. 2 Within this suite, the script named `sbi_upvote_post_comment.py` is logically identified as the core component responsible for executing the upvotes that form the basis of the basic income distribution. 2 This script must necessarily interact with HSBI's backend databases (specified in the configuration as sbi and sbi_steem_ops) to retrieve information about eligible members, their shares, and the posts or comments targeted for upvotes. 2
However, the publicly available information, primarily the repository structure and file names, does not reveal the specific internal logic used by this script. 2 Details concerning how it precisely selects which posts/comments to vote on (beyond identifying member content), how it calculates the exact vote weight (potentially involving factors beyond simple VP/HP calculations), or the algorithm determining which specific account (steembasicincome, sbi2, etc.) should cast a particular vote are not disclosed in the analyzed materials. Access to the script's source code itself was not possible during this analysis. 10 It is clear, though, that this script acts as the central dispatcher, coordinating the voting actions across the distributed fleet of HSBI accounts based on data retrieved from the central database.
To effectively manage the dual constraints of Resource Credits and Voting Power across its multiple accounts, HSBI likely employs one or a combination of load distribution strategies. Common approaches include:
steembasicincome, sbi2, sbi3, sbi4...). As one account votes, others rest, allowing their RC and VP pools to regenerate.Regardless of the specific method, the overarching goal is to maximize the number of valuable votes delivered per day while operating within the RC limitations of the Hive protocol and mitigating excessive VP drain on any single account. This ensures the system can serve more members more effectively than a single-account approach.
Managing such a multi-account system necessitates a high degree of coordination and automation. The complexity of tracking member eligibility, identifying target content, monitoring RC/VP levels across multiple accounts, and executing potentially thousands of votes daily makes manual operation impractical. The extensive list of scripts in the HSBI code repository (e.g., `sbi_update_member_db.py`, `sbi_store_ops_db.py`, `sbi_check_delegation.py`, `sbirunner.sh`) points to a sophisticated, automated system. 2 A central scheduling mechanism, possibly orchestrated by the `sbirunner.sh` script or embedded within the Python applications, is required to direct the actions of the individual voting accounts.
This reveals that while HSBI leverages decentralized assets (individual Hive accounts), their operation within the HSBI service is centrally coordinated. The intelligence determining when, where, and how strongly to vote resides within the centralized automation layer managed by HSBI operators. This hybrid approach—using decentralized infrastructure under centralized operational control—is common in blockchain applications aiming for efficiency and scale.
Hive SBI's decision to implement a multi-account architecture stems from technical necessities and strategic advantages within the Hive blockchain environment.
The most fundamental reason is to circumvent limitations imposed by Hive's Resource Credit (RC) and Voting Power (VP) systems. 9 As detailed, a single account has finite actions (due to RCs) and diminishing vote value with frequent use (due to VP depletion). For a service like HSBI, with high-frequency upvoting, a single-account model is infeasible. The multi-account structure allows parallelization, multiplying its capacity for action.
The architecture provides inherent scalability. As HSBI grows, the demand for upvotes increases. More voting accounts (e.g., sbi5, sbi6) can be added, assuming sufficient Hive Power is distributed across them. This modular design allows throughput to grow with the user base.
Though not explicitly confirmed, a multi-account setup allows for potential functional specialization (e.g., different accounts for posts vs. comments) or risk compartmentalization. If one account's keys were compromised, others might remain operational, though a central compromise would affect all.
By distributing the voting load, HSBI can better manage VP regeneration, maintaining a higher average VP across its fleet. Higher average VP translates to higher average vote values, leading to a more efficient distribution of pooled HP back to members as rewards.
Ultimately, HSBI's architecture is a necessary consequence of its economic goal meeting Hive's technical realities. The objective of providing basic income via mass upvoting 1, confronted with Hive's RC and VP limitations 9, logically dictates a multi-account strategy. 2
HSBI's multi-account strategy is actively implemented within the Hive ecosystem.
On-chain data and community reports show HSBI accounts (steembasicincome, sbi2, sbi3, sbi4, sbi-tokens) actively voting and appearing in payout lists, confirming their role in distributing rewards. 5 This demonstrates the operational status of the multi-account voting mechanism.
Hive SBI (and its predecessor Steem Basic Income) has a considerable history. Code repository commits date back several years 2, and mentions of SBI as a project or reward appear in posts over a similar timeframe. 1 The project is frequently mentioned in user introductions, recommended as a support mechanism, and integrated into community contests where SBI shares are prizes. 5 This deep integration shows the system has been functioning and recognized for an extended period.
External factors can impact HSBI-related activities. For example, one Hive project (Rada Quest) announced a temporary suspension of its "SBI point distribution program" due to external circumstances. 5 Such events may affect specific integrations but do not invalidate the core analysis of HSBI's own multi-account voting architecture when operational.
Hive SBI uses a sophisticated multi-account architecture for its basic income distribution via automated upvotes on the Hive blockchain. This system uses a fleet of dedicated accounts (including steembasicincome, sbi2, sbi3, sbi4, and potentially sbi-tokens) orchestrated by automated backend scripts (like `sbi_upvote_post_comment.py`) and managed via a central database. Separate administrative accounts (e.g., josephsavage, holger80) likely handle system control. 2
The primary driver for this strategy is Hive's Resource Credit (mana) and Voting Power limitations. 9 These make it impossible for a single account to perform high-volume voting while maintaining meaningful vote values. The multi-account approach is a necessary adaptation, enabling parallel processing, increasing throughput, and ensuring scalability.
HSBI's strategy appears effective in achieving operational scale, allowing it to be a long-standing part of the Hive community. 1 However, it highlights a common characteristic of blockchain applications: centralized coordination of decentralized assets. While leveraging blockchain infrastructure, operational logic remains centralized. This hybrid model delivers efficiency but relies on the integrity of central components. The HSBI case exemplifies how application design on blockchains often balances decentralization ideals with practical service delivery and scalability.