Decentralized doesn't have to mean chaotic. A case for Hive communication.

in LeoFinance2 months ago

I'm not a big fish in here. I know. However, I'm in this pond for more than 3years and I deeply believe that Hive will succeed over time. Being super bullish doesn't make me blind and obviously, I can see Hive's shortcoming. After reading a recent post of @fredrikaa I'd like to add my 3cents.

Przechwytywanie.PNG

Decentralization doesn't mean chaos.

I know we all are fed up with hierarchical structures and all models practiced by the centralized world. I'm a rebel too. But after the revolution and tearing down the old world there needs to come a time to create new, healthy structures. New ideas to govern, new ideas to market, new ideas to do anything that allows communication with the external world.

Otherwise, we might become that frustrated, misunderstood chain which is so revolutionary, that no one gets it wondering why nobody comes to use this wonderful tech.

I'll try to keep it short. We need a mouth. A voice. Not a shiny, smiling face of Sun, but somebody who understands this place, is fully committed, can communicate, and could speak on behalf of the community.

And like in the hive queen doesn't have any power, the mouth also has no power over the community. There are different bees that do different jobs, and all of them are needed for Hive to thrive. We have different skillsets and specialization is fully within the realm of decentralization.

But how?

Hive, for the obvious reasons, is a highly technical community, it's full of developers, engineers, and IT people. Don't get me wrong, it's awesome and it's an opposition of situation known from governments. We were able to democratize a process of block confirmation and this system is kinda meritocratic and kinda liquid democracy. I love it!

But as far as I can see there is absolutely no idea how to do more soft tasks like marketing or PR. It almost seems like some people assumed "let's have the best tech, and devoted community and users will come". I know it's not the case, I guess it's the emergent quality of a highly technical environment.

So I came up with an idea to create another voting system to elect people who would be Hive's mouths, official contact people who would be able to communicate outside, speak to media, talk to crypto YouTubers about Hive.

In some ways, it would help to decentralized Hive even more by empowering more people and creating more power-centers. But let's avoid politics. This is the song of the past. Mouth's personal opinions don't really matter as long as it will be someone committed with skin in the game.

One of the things to design carefully is a voting system that would acknowledge stakes but at the same time allow a big group of the minnows to overtake the outcome in case of power centralization. I see it as one of the potential points of failure. But these are specific tweaks.

This is the first part of the system, the second one would be a system for expressing opinions in organize manners. Anybody could add a relevant topic or issue that would be voted later by all interested users, the outcome could be viewed in the two-way
-HP wise
-user count wise

In that way, we could have a place showing the current voice of Hive. The outcome wouldn't be decisive in any other way but steering the voice of mouth. The mouth would be a face that passes this voice further, to the outside world.

The marketing efforts of the mouth could be financed by DHF money but in a more systematic way than a simple proposal, more like regular money that goes for this goal, similarly as resources committed to witnesses (which, I know, come from inflation) but from the fund.

I strongly believe this kind of implementation would make Hive a more transparent and open place and it would allow direct random buzz and achieve the power of swarm. What are your thoughts?

beecolonies4026809_1280.jpg

Images come from the site pixabay.com

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

Sort:  

My personal feelings are that you're 1) on the right track and 2) it starts very much so with great content.

This is my observation from what was happening at steem and now at the Hive... it seems the higher payouts on Hive are on crypto posts or on the more popular Hive bloggers regardless of what they post on. If you want a ton of people to come on board, you'll need to upvote more stuff that has nothing to do with crypto as most people know nothing about it and therefore isn't interesting to them, yet. Secondly, if the content posted isn't something that seems valuable for others to read, why upvote it? Just because if you're the first to vote you'll get curating rewards? That's not why you should be upvoting, imo. If you really want this place to thrive, I think we need substantive posts that cause search engines to link the content. When I joined steem, that was the aim as I understood it. There, I wrote on real estate investing. It's not something that many around here are probably interested in, but it creates diversity in content. That's what we need on Hive, diversity in good content... not necessarily a mediocre picture of your fence or poorly contrasted picture of a random street at dusk...I mean high quality stuff. While I'm ranting, I know another reason I have a hard time paying my video content here is because I only get a payout for 7 days; whereas on YouTube, I get paid indefinitely at the moment... which makes a big deal to me. I get paid hundreds a month for my content and I keep making it because I know that passive income keeps coming. Here, I get 7 days worth and if it didn't catch your attention during that time... too bad. That's why I do more written content and will likely do more written content than "evergreen" video content. I'd say sites like the Hive are great for news content because it's one and done and not likely to be revisited. Anything evergreen should probably be reserved for a site that will pay in perpetuity... just being honest.

But I do agree that the Hive should try to gain several someones with a big voice. Limit it to just one, and you're putting the whole community into the reputation of the one. Put that reputation into the hands of many big voices and you'll have gained traction that won't stop just because "the one" gets caught in a scandal or similar. If you need clarity, feel free to reach out.

It's a good point with multiple voices instead of one IMO. In the end, it could even stretch to ambassadors in countries with the most robust community.

To accommodate more various topics the are communities and tribes and it seems to work. It's true you can get rewarded only within the first 7days but on the other hand, your tokens may get up in value, which seems inevitable while the platform grows. And there are 2nd layer tokens which is some additional source of income, but I see here the potential for much more. Thank you for your honest and insightful comment.

This is the first part of the system, the second one would be a system for expressing opinions in organize manners. Anybody could add a relevant topic or issue that would be voted later by all interested users, the outcome could be viewed in the two-way
-HP wise
-user count wise

I was thinking this exact thing earlier today. I understand the need for 'skin in the game' when it comes to reward distribution, but there needs to be some ability for a huge number of minnows to make a big impact. The challenge I guess deals with how to disincentivize the use of bots that could manipulate that process. I will defer to someone more technically savvy about how best to do that.

In the meantime, let's keep this dialogue moving forward!

Combating bots activity seems fairly easy using some sort of consensus model taking into consideration the reputation factor. Either minimal reputation required or model in which reputable users confirm no-bots activity. With the second option, trust is needed but since it's not decisive it would be clear if somebody stated the truth or just realized their own agenda.

Hive, for the obvious reasons, is a highly technical community, it's full of developers, engineers, and IT people. ... But as far as I can see there is absolutely no idea how to do more soft tasks like marketing or PR.

This was also one of my initial thoughts, after my first exposure to Hive. I am fairly tech savvy and self-identify as a 'modern nerd'. However, when I first tried to join Hive a couple months ago, I literally gave up after spending 30 - 45 minutes trying to figure out how to safely create an account and store my keys. It wasn't until a few weeks ago that I gave it another try and stumbled upon an onboarding process that was more straightforward and less cumbersome.

This is another thing. No UX designers here?
In-built tutorial, landing page, easy registration are must be.

I also had a hard time seeing how to start an account. You have to be dedicated to get in or have someone hold your hand. It should be as easy as getting a Gmail account. There should be something that walks you through the process. I only knew how to navigate my way around because of my steemit days... and even then, I remember steemit being pretty simple to start my account... it was just hard to find a way to buy steem and import it if you'd never done anything with crypto before. I got learned about crypto through a YouTuber talking about steem. I couldn't sleep for 3 days once I fell down the rabbit hole, and I had to research that whole time! I always said to myself that these will never go mainstream as long as it is so difficult to get into and understand. I'm a minnow in the YouTube world, but I still created videos at the time simplifying terms like blockchain and describing how bitcoin and other coins like steem worked... we need more tutorials for the masses to simplify and better user interfaces...I can do tutorials and YouTube videos, but I don't know how to develop ui's

If you're talking a human representing us, I will sell now and leave hive.

If you are talking specifically about Artificial Intellegence speaking for Hive, then I could support that, but every other context of a human, how is naturally bias, having a say about a platform I express myself on, is against everything I stand for.

Independence is a virtue, and I don't need a face especially a stupid looking human talking head speaking on my behalf.

We don't need onboarding, who the fuck wants all those retards to post the pictures of their dogs on Hive now?

I don't care what you ate for dinner or what you think social media is, I probably follow you for another reason more intrinsically tied to a sense of individualism you have.

Possibly I went a little bit too deep into the narrative of the mass adoption. I need to reconsider it. Your answer seems to be so radical that I'd love to see your vision for Hive.

I'll try to nuance my point of view to avoid misunderstanding. Answering in order of appearance in your message.

But let's avoid politics. This is the song of the past. Mouth's personal opinions don't really matter as long as it will be someone committed with skin in the game.

IMO A member of the Hive community with the support of the community has possibly a much bigger chance to create an impact during a crypto conference than as an anonymous user. This is just one example. And marketing to content creators is just one part, the other thing is to market towards potential developers. It's not about politics. It's about compatibility with other entities. And this done by AI would be terrific!

Onboarding doesn't mean cat-and-food-people to flood Hive, it means creating a user experience bearable for non-techy, legit content creators. Of course, after some time everyday people will come after their idols but the task of the community is to curate desirable posts. And people without motivation to improve content quality will give up quickly without earnings. I simply believe everybody needs a chance to make his or her way here.

To cede parts of the freedom lays within boundaries of freedom and the viewpoint of strict no-representation should be equally respected and accepted in the system I imagined and presented. I should have mentioned it before.

So what's not good enough about the immutable voice of the blockchain?

Can it not speak for itself?

I would see any human as a clown trying to be the voice of a community that didn't ask for their voice to be raised.

To speak for itself platform is needed. The process of choosing the person to speak would speak for itself. I mean people from the outside need to have the opportunity to hear that decentralized voice. And if people don't see Hive, the opportunity is missed.

Perhaps @hivecoffee could curate this idea? There's a lot of people all of us will need to approve of before one is chosen if that were to ever happen, the vetting process would probably good for a on chain governance stress test.

I can agree with that. Maybe for the limited time - six months and then new voting? 😎

But terms are a strictly political thing, and that would end up with endless campaigning, not really cool. Instead, votes could have more often need for refreshment.

That's true, however, if you choose people it's most democratic and fair (at least to me) to elect/choose/vote for/whatever them for a limited time and then they are replaced.

Yeah, but the trick is that they might be replaced any moment. And if work is good, why replacement?

That's the reason why you have voting in half-year/year... I think the half-year is good, things go faster online, but, again, that's just my opinion...

!ENGAGE 10

Thank you for your engagement on this post, you have recieved ENGAGE tokens.