They (we) pay for rewards collectively, not individually. We vote individually.

It doesn't change the distribution of other rewards, it mostly just increases all of them by a certain percentage. So if the top 100 got 80% before, the top 100 would get 80% after. Both top 100 and outside

Free speech was the specific use case Hive was intended to reward financially And it does, but not everything gets rewards.

You're confused. Being a witness has nothing to do with voting on content rewards, and nobody, including me, gets to "adjust". I vote, you vote, we all vote. The blockchain adds them up and pays

believe what it says on the box I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where does it say you are entitled to rewards on any particular post?

rapidly entering into hyperinflation, and I'm sure we'll probably go full-Zimbabwe with it. I don't know if this was ever done with the so-called "world's reserve currency" in the past Maybe

Who the hell here has entrusted, delegated or granted you the power to "adjust" here a sovereign damn? I get a vote based on stake, same as anyone else, including you, simple as that

then taken away in real life that I've heard of Nor here either. Until payout, you haven't received the rewards. You can't spend them or transfer them or do anything else with them because you haven't

There are a lot more than 4 stakeholders.

hbd.funder comments, which presumably does something The hbd.funder comments support the hbdstabilizer, which both supports the stability of HBD, along with earning a profit (at least 1 million USD) for

We can certainly work to improve the social dApp component. I would suggest that is probably best done by further supporting and emphasizing second layer innovation, which is frankly where most of the

Except that they shift those rewards that are being removed right up to the top-earning posts, correct? No, they don't. They reduce the eventual payout of the one post which results in more remaining in

Because the first stakeholder does not "pay" a post, they vote for rewards. The votes (both for and against rewards) are added up AT THE END, and then rewards, if any, are paid. If someone wants

"Flags" don't exist in the white paper. Elewhere this thread I linked to an archive of the early steemit web site that didn't have "flags", it had upvote and downvote. Go look. How

Fine with me. The social app is basically an app. It happened to be built into the blockchain, but from a software design or blockchain consensus point of view there really isn't any reason for it. The

Rewards are not imposing beliefs. They're a reward. You're entitled to submit a candidate to get rewards, and may get some, but you aren't entitled to them, and not getting them or getting less isn't

Stakeholders are paying for inflation every single block no matter what they do, because they are the ones being inflated. If you show up looking for rewards with low or no stake, inflation doesn't cost

You keep mentioning the word "stakeholders" as if we all here were equal stakeholders with the same access privileges and with a similar capacity Nope, I never said equally. If I pay 100x as

Hardly. It's rewards you may get or may not get. There's no coercion involved whatsoever.

It's not censorship. Post all you want. You're just not entitled to get paid for it if stakeholders vote not to pay you.