Are you sure that HP loses share? HIVE definitely loses share, but I'm not sure about HP. I haven't looked at the numbers recently (also inflation has been ususually low for the past couple of years due

@ocdb is a well known one. There are others but I don't remember them.

Agree. FWIW, I think ChatGPT can come close to working code given the algorithm pseudocode. It doesn't quite get APIs right, but that can probably be fixed with prompts.

Thank you

We can always add more proposals.

I'm sure it 'could', but I don't really see that as likely to happen.

I think it is also less confusing in terms of voting to not be a 'return' substitute and just get voted like any other proposal: if you support it you you vote for it, and if you don't, you don't. I believe

Some days it won't make a difference because the stabilizer, even with the previous, larger, proposal does nothing and just sends most or all of the funding back. Other days, when there is more imbalance,

Happy to engage and likewise appreciate your engagement.

I didn't mean to suggest I expected a lot of tipping.

The only mechanisms for newsflash and xeldal to literally 'spend their money' would be through tips or direct payments. The reward pool is a shared resource. It's funded by inflation of stake which is

The current system affords supporters of marky only two options: No there are two others ones completely different from what you mentioned: Support themarkymark with tipping, witness votes, DHF, or some

So what you're saying here is that any post that gets passed over by 'any and all whale DVs' has thusly received the consensus blessing of all whales and thus is allowed to bathe in the HIVE inflation

Reasons as if the content of that "stuff" has not been seen by anyone or only seen by a minimal audience That's extremely unlikely for anything with large payout. I really don't know what do

Glorious. Thank you for your efforts.

Wonderful work. Hive on.

The consensus is all the stuff that doesn't get downvoted (or is downvoted less). Someone can arbitrarily downvote a few things, but they have to choose what to downvote. No one has enough downvotes to

If someone chooses to downvote something, it gets less rewards. The more stake downvoting it (whether from one person or multiple), the more stake disagreement there is, and the less rewards it gets. At

We'll have to agree to disagree. A single whale CAN nuke SOME posts. But they have to prioritize which posts, and that's consensus. The ones they're nuking do not have consensus. The others that necessarily

yet they cost good-faith curators, sometimes considerably, it drives good-faith curators away from certain accounts, authors, topics, or away from manual curation altogether, as in your case This is by