Yeah I guess thats a way more efficient way of saying what I was trying to say lol, thanks. You probably are able to express your point more eloquently than me, and the more people actively voting - or

after next bitcoin ATH when profit takers look for stablecoin options. But why should we be sitting and waiting with fingers crossed for forces beyond our control to maybe bring some people in? It's no

Yeah exactly. I know they have a lot of other things on their plates, but so does every other leader of every other thing, and those people generally have the burden to be the public figure to garner knowledge

Well thats exactly it - whats the point in a system of governance when we're only supposed to vote based on their ability to run the blockchain? That's like choosing a prime minister based on their ability

2 whale votes to control the vast majority of the Hive population. Yeah no worries I'm aware - like I said I wouldn't do such a vote removal if I had a whale vote that would make a difference. It was just

Yeah I'm not a witness haha... I don't wish to be either, that's a job I don't envy! I'm a mere creative =P A sub-unit would be interesting, assigning them different roles to do as a company would, but

I guess we disagree a bit on the governance aspect, largely because you know them well, while I don't know them at all, and I think I represent whatever everyday users are left on here - we know nothing

Done! (especially for the chess promotion) (not that it made a difference to your rank but hey ho...)

Setting the APR at 20% and using this as a selling point or value proposition for adoption, and then just changing it without really having done any impactful marketing and trying to spread it far and

I don't really understand your point. I don't see why shuffling some of the witnesses around would affect price, assuming they're all capable of doing the job. Like, if we all en masse vote to keep 20%

Apparently you have zero HBD? lol

Don't want to see witnesses signaling 20 in order to get votes, due to the integrity issues. That's a fair point, but voting doesn't necessarily have to be about destabilizing and dethroning. I would never

Yeah pretty reasonable approach but either way wouldn't accomplish anything noteworthy, 20% hasn't brought anyone in purely because there's been no push to do that. There's a kind of paltry, wannabe series

I just blogged that I'm removing votes from people signaling under 20% but it's certainly not a panic vote - it's very amicable and simply because I have very little else to go on when it comes to deciding

I just don't think that's true at all. I have $2,000 in savings, but the majority is in HP and a good chunk off platform for trading. I'm hedging my bets with different benefits to each. HP can potentially

Yeah you're on my page with that. Watching UK's inflation rate eat away at my savings I built up over 14 year is the height of frustration for me. I've literally been reading up how I can best move most

That's one point I do agree with, the whole 'too good to be true' thing. Talking to outsiders, that is one thing that immediately stinks of 'scam' in their eyes. 10-15 can be marketed to the normies as

Yeah I think a lot of people are simply waiting for it to hit a dollar and then pull out everything they got. Sad if true, and I hope it's not... It's true that you can do some research but to me that's

Had to attempt some kind of attention grabbing lol... But I mean in the purest definition it kinda is. Doesn't necessarily mean an evil dictatorship, just a dead democracy

While lowering from 20% seems nothing but reasonable on the surface - 20% is a treat beyond what anybody could ask anyway - I personally don't think making something stable worse in order to make something