I do my Hive curation for about 45 minutes to an hour, and during this time, my vote weight fluctuates between 98% and 75 or 76, occasionally dropping to the low 70s. Surprisingly, I do not even do 80% of the curation I want.
Sometimes I skip the accounts I am supposed to curate because I do not want my VP to drop below 70. Most days, I want it to stay between 78 and 80 percent, but it occasionally drops to 74 percent, as it did today.
The problem is that I have some accounts on auto-vote, and once my VP reaches 85%, my account is no longer able to vote for them and shuts down automatically. I do this solely to protect my VP.
However, I make sure to vote these accounts again the next time, especially if my auto votes fail to reach them. This creates a problem because I now have less VW to do manual curation for the day.
So scarcity sets in, and I begin to create a preference scale, reducing the VP that should go here and there while probably ignoring some other accounts that I should have curated for the day.
Unfortunately, the VP must be protected. Sometimes I go for 12 to 14 hours without doing any form of voting, just for the VP to recharge.
Scarcity can be extremely stressful, especially because it prevents you from expressing your full potential, behavioral tendencies, or capacities. This is why anyone with 500HP or more has a voting slider. You can choose to give everyone a portion while keeping a healthy vote weight.
A slider makes you a sort of a manager. This is because you control how you use your VP, and if it were unlimited, everyone would constantly throw 100% everywhere. Most people can only do 2 to 4 100% before hitting 50%, at which point their vote weight is toast, and it takes a few days to reach 100% again.
Personally, I don't dislike the scarcity; it is not evil, but rather a check on potential excesses. Nobody should have unlimited resources or capacity to do whatever they want. This is how dictatorship begins. When people taste what it feels like to be unlimited, they will eventually succumb to temptations, which corrupts the mind.
On the other hand, scarcity has a disadvantage: it causes people to have preferences, it fosters excessive managerial tendencies, and it allows people to make difficult decisions when it comes to allocating resources correctly.
Scarcity is what causes skewed allocation, which unfortunately leaves you powerless. Most of the time, we are drawn to where the resources are, which can lead to a sense of preferentialism. It is what causes people to be loyal to some while disloyal to others. It also causes circle jerks.
However, I believe that unlimited abundance will be far more dangerous than scarcity. People are known for being greedier even when they have more. We believe that abundance brings contentment, but it can also create a desire for more.
This psychology is strange, but it is true.
It is never a problem to maintain a balance, and I sometimes enjoy the intrigue of creating a preference scale.
Yes, I agree that I would like to add more accounts to vote, but I do not currently have the capacity to do so; perhaps someday, maybe not.
Scarcity does not only occur at the lowest level. Even whale accounts do not have enough to give out.
This is because the more they have, the greater the responsibility to do more. However, the more accounts willing to take on responsibility the lesser the scarcity.
The system has to create people who wants to take on more curating responsibilities, and this will reduce the feeling of excessive scarcity and lobbying that happens at the grassroots and at the top as well.
Interested in some more of my posts
