RE: Hive or centralized social media platforms

Yes, that's the problem. Look, I'm not materialistic. For many years, I participated online by creating blogs, personal websites, and so on, as a hobby. And 15 to 20 years ago, there was no way to earn anything from your online presence beyond putting up a few banners on your website.

But nowadays, it's possible to get paid something (even if it's minimal) for participating. Platforms like Hive, Steemit, Blurt, Publish0x, etc., pay a little, and a small extra income isn't bad. Plus, you're still doing what you love (in my case, I share photos, write articles about computers, etc.).

But working with the promise of receiving something only to have it taken away is, in my opinion, a scam. On Hive and other platforms, there's the option for participants to downvote as a way of saying, "I don't like what you publish, try harder," and that's fine. The worst that can happen is that, as an author, you lose relevance, and your posts don't get as much attention in the feed. But if they vote for you, you move up in the rankings.

On Hive and similar platforms, you also get tokens for positive posts, which is an incentive to do a good job. But... just as you earn money with positive votes, you also earn money with negative ones: the amount generated by the network is divided in two, one part for the creators and the other for the curators of the posts.

Every time a post is demonetized, that money is returned to the platform's pool and used for other things; it's unclaimed money. But those who are voting negatively and have a lot of voting power (check out how much HP @themarkymark has - 1,612,286,604, @buildawhale - 75,618,517, etc.) and they downvote you, you're screwed.

They have enormous voting power, and if they vote negatively, goodbye to everything you've accumulated in your post. Let's take an example to understand it better: suppose you start a small business, pay for advertising, and begin to generate a decent income. Customers come in, etc.

But then Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, etc., appear on the scene and speak ill of your business, inciting their followers not to buy from you. And what will happen? Exactly. They have a huge influence on the public, and nobody will go to your business simply because they say it's no good, and the public will believe them.

Well, it's the same here. These accounts are downvoting posts on a whim (they're automated votes), and no matter how good your article, photos, etc., are, you get zero points. Now, since they have significant voting power, they can receive a higher-than-average reward (much higher, I suppose) for "curating" the content. Yes, if I give you a positive vote and my voting power is high, you receive more Hive points, but if the voting power is high, the participant also receives more as compensation for their participation, and that's where the money is.

By voting negatively en masse and wielding significant voting power, the platform "thanks" them for their "curation" by offering a substantial reward in the process.

"But why negative votes and not positive ones if the platform would also thank them for their participation?" That's a good question. Supposedly, there are vested interests at play here. Large investors behind Hive's development have a stake in this, and the money being returned could be used by them (Blocktrades is an example of this; it's accused of funding these bot accounts without it being entirely clear what their intentions are).

In short, negative votes are killing Hive. Far from helping, they only serve personal interests and drive away those who genuinely want to participate. If you look at Hive's price, it keeps falling, and I think that reflects the situation Hive is facing.