The Hive blockchain is a unique blockchain that rewards its users in every possible way. The most common way of earning rewards on the Hive blockchain is through the curation process.
In this first episode of the Hive Library, #HLIB series, I will be detailing the concept of curation as applied to the Hive blockchain.
This #HLIB article will focus on the following key areas:
To establish the need for curation on the Hive Blockchain, we have to establish what Proof of Brain is (not the proofofbrain.io - POB, community).
To begin with, you have to appreciate that cryptosystems and blockchains work with different methods of validating and rewarding activities on respective blockchains. Among them are the following:
Proof of Work (PoW) is the traditional mining process for cryptocurrencies.
Proof of Stake (PoS) is a method in which authority is given to the highest holder of crypto on the block to validate new blocks.
There are others, including Proof of Authority (PoA), Proof of Capacity (PoC), Proof of Activity (PoAc), and Proof of Burn (PoBn). Some acronyms have been made by me
All of the above are known as consensus mechanisms, as they all involve some computer-based algorithm to validate activities on the blockchain and reward its users.
In 2017, the Proof of Brain system started to become a thing. Here, activities are rewarded based on human judgement of worth.
The Proof of Brain (PoB) was a system designed to reward content creators and content curators. It is a token system designed to reward users when they contribute to a token-based community such as Steemit and Hive.
The Steem blue paper says it all about how the Proof of Brain system operates:
The users who produce content are adding value to the network by creating material that will drive new users to the platform, as well as keep the existing users engaged and entertained. This aids in distributing the currency to a wider set of users and increases the network effect. The users that take the time to evaluate and vote on content are playing an important role in distributing the currency to the users who are adding the most value. The blockchain rewards both of these activities relative to their value based on the collective wisdom of the crowd collected through the stake-weighted voting system.
Steem Bluepaper
From this, we could easily conclude that the Proof of Brain system rewards users based on their intellectual abilities. First, their ability to create educational and entertaining content; and secondly, through their ability to judge the worth of content, which is the curation process.
On the Hive blockchain, the word "curation" is constantly being tossed around. Just a kind reminder:
Curation is the process of judging and assigning worth/value to a piece of content shared on the Hive blockchain.
@zestimony
Remember, Hive operates a Proof of Brain (PoB) consensus mechanism, which means that, unlike other methods of reaching consensus on blockchains, which require more automated inputs, fellow humans (me and you) browse through the blockchain and judge whether or not the contents being shared are worth it. If they are judged as worthy, they are assigned value through upvotes.
The whole of this process in which users on the Blockchain scan through contents shared (posts) and assign them value through votes is called curation [a vote is a vote, whether up or down].
A curator curates. He/she is the one who looks over the contents on the blockchain and assigns them value. In this context, we are all content curators as well as content creators. So, you are not just a blogger, but you are a curator as well.
However, as individual curators, our vote value almost always amounts to nothing significant in terms of token rewards, though, it does good for our reputation.
However, we most likely consider whales with huge voting power as the main curators. Even if this is not correct, it is not entirely wrong in itself.
Most communities on the Hive blockchain will assign the task of curation to a few trusted members of the community who have been tested and trusted to have a good sense of judgment.
It is only by using their judgments that a post will receive significant curation rewards, most likely, from a whale.
Curation involves a lot:
It requires the curator to practically read through the whole text that makes up part of the post shared, then make sense of it.
The curator also has to use plagiarism checkers to confirm whether or not the content shared is plagiarism-free.
The curator will look carefully at individual images and their sources to ensure that any sort of copyright infringement has not occurred.
The curator also looks out for the level of engagement in the post to give him/her a clue of the level of community interest in the content shared.
The curator may also provide feedback to the content writer on the state of their post and possible corrections that must be made before the post may gain curation rewards.
The content curator also keeps records of users who violate one or more community guidelines and advises on possible penalties.
Carry out other community-specific tasks and much more.
I have not served as a curator here on Hive, but I have a clue about what it could feel like. First of all, it is a very taxing endeavour, having to read through posts shared by a myriad of users and even provide constructive and useful feedback a few times.
The curator, along with the myriads of tasks he/she handles, also has to deal with handling cases of vote begging, blatant infractions of community guidelines, and much more.
Being a curator requires patience, a good sense of judgement, analytical and critical thinking, a good sense of justice, high intellect and cognitive capacity, and much more.
Vote begging, plagiarism, and unethical content recycling are what I describe as anti-curation practices. These practices, first of all, defy the fundamental idea of a Proof of Brain System system, are intellectual theft and even defile ethics.
Starting with plagiarism, which is basically the same as content theft, damages the reputation of the one caught in this act, it also places the Hive blockchain in a delicate position, and at risk of legal intervention.
Vote begging is basically trying to influence the choice of the curator, asking him/her to assign a value to your content based on your judgement of your worth. Everyone is independent of their thoughts and reasoning, so, any attempt to infringe on it is also infringing on their fundamental rights as humans. Vote begging is basically an attempt to cut corners and escape the curation process. Let's say no to this.
Unethical content recycling is trying to get rewards for a post shared that has already been duly rewarded in the past. If a post was not rewarded previously, it may be appropriate to recycle it clearly stating the reason for this, and this is, of course, appropriate if the community permits. Posts that are recycled verbatim after some years or months with the hope that they cannot be detected are considered plagiarised and will receive the same consequences as plagiarised content. I think communities need to decide on what ethical and unethical content recycling implies.
So far, it has been established that the Hive blockchain thrives on two major activities: content creation and content curation. Both activities require active involvement by all parties involved—the creators and curators.
In the next #HLIB series, we will be exploring the source of curation rewards. Concepts such as a curation trail, the role of delegation in curation rewards, and much more will be explored.
Thanks for indulging yourself in this. Peace out!
Your feedback is appreciated. Is there something I haven't said correctly? Is there an addition you feel is important? Do you have any questions? Feel free to comment below.
Please, tag your friends to be part of this series. Hopefully, there will be an #HLIB episode weekly.
