The goal of downvoting is not to "protect the reward pool". it is to direct the reward pool elsewhere, when the downvoter doesn't agree that payout is a good use of reward pool funds. The reward

As stated elsewhere, it doesn't matter what someone votes for in terms of curation, as long as it isn't being heavily downvoted. Curation rewards are just for participation. Once you factor in someone's

The DHF has a limited amount of funds (which voting for the comments increase, as @blocktrades told you). There is a cap on the total DHF budget. As I indicated in my other comment, the stabilizer has

I will probably sell again at some point. Right now I feel it is massively undevalued. In any case, there is plenty of HIVE and HBD (which can be converted into HIVE) being sold from inflation/rewards

The DHF is very limited. We're already close to maxed out on the DHF budget for hdbstabilizer (we were literally maxed out 100% for months until recently but now a few hundred below and could use another

Does not need whales to function, ever. Yes and no. I sold a large part of the stake I once had, and then bought more using outside investment in the past couple of years. The current value of post rewards

The experiment was making the reward payouts more linear by downvoting when a lot of votes were piled onto one payout. At the time reward payouts were quadratic (twice as many votes earned four times the

Everyone who uses their voting power (10 votes per day) earns the same curation rewards, except for being downvoted or late votes (after 24 hours). This didn't used to be the case, but now all you get

My curation rewards aren't any different from any other stakeholder who uses their voting power, relative to stake. Since the last few hard forks, curation rewards were made linear, except to the extent

The intital hbdstabilizer budget was 100 HBD per hour from the DAO, or about $2400 per day. Seeing both quantifiable and subjective success with that budget (as well as all of the funds being returned,

hbdstabilizer and hbd.funder are supported because all of the rewards are returned and generate a direct profit for Hive stakeholders, generating demand to remove HIVE from the market (dalz quantified

The 1000 MV thing doesn't apply any more. Rewards are linear.

I think that's a reasonable direction, or perhaps define the peg in such a way that inflation per year is capped. We can stick with USD for now since it is still widely used, but the USD continues to

best second layer apps have a positive feedback loop with the larger Hive community. I really want to prove you wrong with regards to this just being a matter of time and circumstance and perhaps 3speak

They did. Yes that's fine. People can vote to direct rewards a certain way, and others can vote a different way. The votes are added up and so it goes. Speech, and even free speech, as compared to REWARDING

It was the current price, more or less (was a rough estimate, not a precise calculation). But even at lower prices, these numbers are still terrible. If we had 10-15x the users, it still wouldn't be great,

except for the cost-benefit of the community/social aspect Look at the numbers. We're spending about $15 million per year on content rewards with a user base of about 15000, that hasn't grown significantly

It sounds like you see the inflation being distributed far and wide as not ideal, and I’m having a hard time understanding that This is not true at all. In fact when I downvote it is usually the highest

We will likely have to agree to disagree on the relationship between inflation rewards and free speech. I think free speech can thrive independent of inflation rewards, and these rewards can (and in my

A large payout on a post only effects everyone else’s payout by a tiny bit and so we’d rather let it slide Yes I understand that people who aren't significant stakeholders and are only on the receiving