RE: How A Smaller Accounts Can Make An Impact Upon Hive
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Without entering a wrong versus right debate, differentiated APRs based on the size of the account could make sense in a system with one-account-one-person. Or at least where account associations are known or verifiable.
On Hive, this isn't the case. A person with a huge account can break it down in as many alt accounts as desired to take advantage of the higher APR.
0
0
0.000
I agree with you, if it was as proposed in the example any whale could create an alternative account to get a better APR (ie 50%)
So you are saying a whale, with more than 500K could break it up, say 100K, and get 50K off that second account?
Of are you saying the whale could make an account of 5000, and get another 2500? That certainly could happen but what does that do for the overall ROI?
2500/500K is not very large.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Yeah, perhaps you are right and maybe that doesn’t worth the efforts of a whale
It's still depends on the target of the whale if the whale is calculating his earning in terms of percentage or the amount of money that comes into his wallet within the said period of time.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I think it depends on ty perspective you're coming from. 2500/5000k isn't large when compared with a smaller account that can make a 100% in this period of time.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
That is true and many have a variety of accounts. But how many are breaking it up into 30 accounts and posting out of them?
So you are saying that someone with a lot of accounts could break them up and get the APR by working the multitude of accounts?
How would that work?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
You were proposing differentiated APR for HBD in savings, based on the amount of HP the account has, and that doesn't require any work apart from splitting the HBD in alts.
For HP, not sure how differentiated APR would work. Based on what? But I agree (from the experience of working with only a few accounts at most, and for different purposes), that if one has to grow each account actively, this isn't working, because time is finite.
Ah yes. For the HBD that is true. That is why it was just a thought exercise. It is an absurd approach and not one being advocated.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I was thinking the same, It has already been seen in the past, it would be a possibility, I don't know, if a verification option was added to the accounts, but I think that had to be done before everything
Yes, it would be easily exploitable. And where there's an invitation to abuse, people will do it.
Didn't Dan Larimer try that with that Twitter-like platform on EOS? I haven't heard anything else about it - it was an obvious failure. And that's at app level not at blockchain level.
Yes, i know that.
And you are totally right
I go with this point and I'll also add that proof of stake can also influence the APRs when people don't maintain one account per individual.
A person with proof of stake has a competitive advantage in terms of making decisions in matters concerning the APR variations.
Thanks for this unique point.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I wasn't pleading that such a system would be good for Hive. In fact I don't like KYC and I try to avoid it as much as possible.
Yes, votes are stake-weighted, both for governance and for rewards, and I believe it's good that they are so. But unlike simple POS, DPOS is more flexible in my opinion.
I talked in the past about one-account, one-vote model. You might want to see what I had to say about it.
I'll visit your post as soon as possible to get adequate information on the subject matter.
Thanks
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
He'd risk getting caught and flagged, permanently destroy his reputation. Makes very little sense atm, financially, he'd just transfer his assets into savings and leave it there.
How would you know if someone has a network of alts if that person knows what he's doing and doesn't link them to his public / main account(s) through Hive?
I'm not saying this is right. This would obviously be abuse. But the differentiated APR would incentivize it.
Plus, in this case, I think many would do it in the open, as a disagreement to the differentiation introduced that is against their interests.
Voting Cycles, just follow the money and then check the accounts. We have tools for that. They often get lazy and start upvoting comments of each other and all those accounts are basically swam active. It's fairly good to detect.
Yes, if they move the accounts 'on-grid' and activate them. Those who are careful won't do that.
But, as mentioned in my reply, in this case, I believe many would simply do it in the open and it would be an acceptable practice, at least among high-stakers.
I wouldn't be so sure :)
We had some vicious downvote fight considering this behavior on Chain two years ago and a lot of huge stakeholders know the game now.
Well, let's look at things this way. Over the past whatever number of months (I don't remember how many) the total stake of whale accounts grew from around 43-44% to 49-50%. All other categories lost in total stake percentage. Do you think they would allow someone with nearly no involvement or track record around here to earn a higher APR on HBD than they would? Differentiated APR on HBD based on stake will either not exist (most likely), or it will be abused in plain sight.
43-44% to 49-50% is that so, hmmm
That was an absurd example meant to highlight what can be done with HP.
Why did anyone take that idea to be serious?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Good point! :)