I was meant to do some work this weekend to try to catch up for the week ahead, but I just can't be bothered, my motivation to do another weekend of salaried work is just not there at the moment. Instead, I have just been pottering around the house, doing odd renovation tasks and "window shopping" online for a new TV. I don' think I am even going to get a new TV, but I thought I would see what was available and, it is insane.
Here I was thinking that buying a TV would be pretty simple - pick a size - but the amount of variation even within the same brand and size is enormous. Then there is the challenge that many of them have regional numbering formats, with different regions getting different features and, some of the same numbers will have different features depending on location sold - comparing what is what and working out what is suitable for us, is a nightmare.
It is more stressful than the work I have left to do.
Oh well, luckily I am in no rush for a TV, since ours is lucky to be on more than 10 hours a week as it is. I can't even remember the last movie we watched and the random miniseries we have tried have been terrible, despite the reviews. Miniseries are good though, as at least we know they are going to end. It is super frustrating to start a new show, only to have it cancelled for whatever reason, regardless of whether it is good or not.
Viewership and ratings are not an indicator of quality or value of a show, it is just indicative of the people willing to watch it and often, the people who spend the most time consuming shows, aren't necessarily the "best and brightest" in terms of activity. They are valuable as viewers because they are consumers - not because they have the ability to evaluate quality. Wisdom of the crowd only goes so far and while it can fit nicely into a supply and demand matrix, it doesn't mean what is supplied or demanded is what actually adds value to the world in which we live.
I remember reading somewhere, a decade or two ago about the percentage of people who watch reality television in different economic brackets. It was something like 90% of poverty level watched, but only 3% of the top tiers watched. There are likely several factors that go into this result, but it is pretty clear that when it comes to activity, the rich and poor probably do quite different things.
I think about behavior a lot - yours and mine, with yours being, everyone other than myself. I like to observe the way people act and I try to understand why they work the way they do. I of course don't get perfect information or feedback on this, so there is a lot of blur interpretation involved to affect the results, but it is hobby nonetheless.
In general, I take the "eyes on your own plate" approach to most things, where I focus on the things within my control or can influence, over the stuff that I cannot. But, I would also be remiss to not factor in the activities of others in relation to the plate I have in front of me, as in any economy of interdependencies, every activity has an influence on every other activity in some way.
I see a lot of this on Hive, where people think that they can do what they want in a vacuum, but also look at the activities of others and want to change them because they are affected. This normally centers around the rewards pool and distribution (voting) and redistribution (downvoting) of resources, because that is the part of the platform most people's eyes turn. There are many ways to abuse the rewards pool and "what is abuse" can be argued, but because it is a shared pool or resources where every activity has a bearing on its movement in some way, there are always going to be conflict over the way it is used.
On Hive, stake is the thing that directly affects the rewards pool, but that is not the only thing that does, behavior does too.
It is interesting to get these kinds of comments in a DM from someone I have never seen before, and that was the literally the entire conversation. What is your judgement of their initial behavior and what do you think is their likelihood of following the advice they asked for? Do you reckon they are destined for Hive greatness?
While we like to act like everyone has the same potential in this, it is not the case as no one comes in like a blank slate, they carry all of their past experience and physicality with them. This means that while we might want to create a system that is fair, it is an impossibility. The person above might want the same thing as me, an increase in value, but the way we go about it matters in multiple ways and my stake won't be used to support any behaviors and my stake will also be used to encourage the kinds of behaviors I want to see more of in the world, at least the best I can do.
It is a "be the change" approach and stake on Hive is an extension of personal behavior, much like a hammer is, it can be used to build or it can be used to destroy. Often, people think they are building when they are destroying, because they aren't looking at the processes of their behaviors in the ecosystem as a whole.
This is just the way things go though, as societies and communities are complex systems and if I can't easily workout which TV is best for my family, what are the chances of being able to firstly see and understand, then accurately evaluate all of the other options in life - let alone apply them as I had intended.
But this is where crowds do come into it, where proof-of-brain attempts to order the community to create norms that can flex, but are looking to continually improve the system, not destroy it. When it comes to stake, I would say that those with stake are far less likely to intentionally harm the platform than those without, even though many will do degrees of harm, because there is no "correct" activity - all come with pros and cons.
It is about skin in the game and there is a difference between those with financial skin and those who are looking for a salary. An owner has to concern themselves with the entire ecosystem of their business, an employee can stay narrow. And, if the business collapses, the owner loses the ecosystem with very little chance to move into the same situation again - but the employee can get another job, doing a similar thing, in another firm. An employee has far greater mobility and choice to change, than the owner. The owner has far greater risk due to the inability to move, but also more potential for reward than the employee.
There is a trade-off in everything we do and with so many variations in choices as well as decisions made, our outcomes as individuals are going to be spread very wide. Because we carry all of these outcomes with us and these direct our lives, when we all happen to congregate in one small area, there is going to be conflict of behavior. However, this isn't a "to each their own" community, as it has shared resources and different levels of investment and kinds of activities involved, which means there is always going to be tensions pushing and pulling in different directions.
Finding a balance where participants are incentivized to be their best, whilst improving the opportunities for others to be their best also, could be considered a goal. However, your best is not my best and our behaviors are never going to be the same, nor have the same history or ability driving them.
Proof-of-Brain isn't about finding the best quality of content, it is about finding content that improves opportunity on the platform. This requires a large mix of content and will likely also favor quality in many ways, but it is far more complex than most people give it credit and far too complex for everyone to get it right all of the time. Yet, through a mix of mechanisms, we can possibly find a dynamic line of best fit that will always be a little wrong, but always look to improve. There is no perfect solution to anything, it is all far too complex.
We like to see the stake on the platform as if it is independent from the real world, or that the people just got lucky - but it isn't without its own history. A person that got in early to mine had to possess at that moment skills that most people do not have. People who bought cheap had to have economic availability in order to do so and a willingness to take risks. The people who have earned through their content had to likely do what I suggested above and even the people who behaved poorly and ended up with a lot of stake, had to navigate themselves through the community to do so. It is all part of the proof-of-brain model in my opinion, and it all affects how the community progresses into the future.
It is an interesting thing to note in myself. While I don't have the motivation to do the work as an employee at the moment, I have never not had the motivation to write on Hive. Many people think it is done for the money, but if that was the case, I would be far better off getting another job doing what will pay me as an employee - my job earns significantly more than I do on Hive - but the work I do there doesn't give me the ability to own my job - it will always be someone else's.
Here on Hive - this is mine.
And I reckon that it is a large part of the difference in mindset behind how people behave on the platform. When people do it for the money alone, they are not tied to the community other than as far as needed to get "paid" for the work. When people see themselves as owners of the platform, they understand the community is a key component and without it, what they own is worthless.
Financial mobility is one of the most important aspects of crypto - but it is the behavior of that value that is more important, because that is what is used to incentivize activity to improve our world, or degrade it even further.
Your stake is your own to use as you choose, but it does not exist in a vacuum.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
