When you upvote any content on Hive you get back 50% curation rewards. Hive SBI works exactly the same way. You commit stake for permanent upvotes on the account, and then you get back 50% as upvotes on your own account.
Putting it through the Hive SBI mechanism has some advantages over managing your auto-votes through an auto-voter, and some disadvantages.
At the end of the day, curation is curation. Just because you don't understand the mechanism doesn't make it vote-selling.
When you upvote any content on Hive you get back 50% curation rewards.
Why are you starting this comment off with this? Any logical reason because it sure as hell isn't relevant to your project in any way.
You're voting people who have given you liquid Hive, you're not giving them part of the curation rewards, just their value back over time in the form of small votes over many posts. That's the issue.
Sure you may give some people units for free and that's fine and encouraged with hopefully some oversight on who the receivers are, and sure people gift the units to others but it's still costing them initially and that's how you've made most of your hivepower I reckon.
I don't understand what you think I may not be understanding over your mechanism. It's voteselling with a long-tail, is it not?
You're voting people who have given you liquid Hive, you're not giving them part of the curation rewards, just their value back over time in the form of small votes over many posts. That's the issue.
That is incorrect. Take the 50% curation the HSBI account gets. Now do the math to figure out what that is per share of HSBI. They then receive an upvote equal to that. So you see, the upvote is not their money coming back, but it is the curation on their upvote. There is no difference between this "upvote payment" and the "curation payment" they would otherwise have been getting if they had powered up the HIVE themselves.
@josephsavage correct me if I'm wrong.
Just because they're giving them 2x rewards based on the value of the hive they purchased the votes for doesn't change much, if that's what you're implying to with the curaton rewards. They're still voting based on who's paying, not things curators look to reward and direct inflation to.
I just stumbled upon a post @vempromundo going over the HSBI project and the fact they hadn't upvoted the post just cause (what I assume) the author doesn't have units or has purchased votes kind of proves my point of what's wrong with these schemes. It's a little sad to say the least that the creator consumed and left a response but didn't reward a post literally talking about his own project with a vote.
I don't want people to read too into this example but if all we vote is just whoever gives us money I don't think I need to remind people of how that went a few years ago.
You have made very good and reasonable arguments.
For me, this HSBI stock has always been a normal bid-bot.
I think Mr. Savage is running his project with honest and good intentions. However, this service is no longer necessary. Instead of paying Hive for HSBI shares, Hive can be sent directly to the recipient via the “tip” button on PeakD. This is easier, faster and saves on the reward pool.
Even though this HSBI share is run with good intentions, there are always people who take advantage of it for their own gain.
Example: https://peakd.com/@sebescen81/posts
Off-Topic:
Sehr gut, dass du den Oberfarmer galenkp gedownvoted hast.
Ich bin auch ernsthaft am Überlegen, ob ich nicht mal 100k+ Hive aufpowern sollte, um diese ganzen Zirkelvoter und Farmer (z. B. auch oflyhigh!) zu downvoten. Allerdings muss ich dann aufgrund der zu erwartenden Gegenreaktion wohl ganz aufhören zu posten. :-)
I understand and agree with your position. After all, if we talk about a topic and bring it up, we expect at least some 'consideration'. A vote would be interesting, but a comment like his, giving space for an 'interview' also seemed interesting to me, because at least I will be able to clear up all the doubts that I and many others have about the HSBI program.
However, I wasn't bothered by the lack of an upvote, since I didn't even know who the account holder was, much less that I was on his radar when I made the post. I always try to talk about topics that my followers are talking about, whether on the feed or on Discord, because I believe that is what they would like to consume. But I understand your point of view, your criticism, and I consider it valid. After all, when someone mentions one of my initiatives, I am happy and gave my upvote to the person as a form of consideration.
The voting power in the Hive SBI accounts is specifically earmarked to support the crowdsourced basic income. In effect, each HIVE submitted dedicates permanent support for the sponsored account, and the curation is provided back to the sponsor in the form of upvotes for their own support.
Any manual curation from the accounts would divert value, violate promises made to the community, and be an example of the forms of corruption that your video mentioned users should be watchful of. It would be like if hive.vote used its posting authorities to divert user upvotes whenever it encounters posts about itself. That would very obviously be theft!
We reblogged your post, and that can attract more voters with discretionary voting power, but our own VP is committed to delivery according to the promises made to our stakeholders.
I understand the point; it does make sense not to divert votes so that the initial idea prevails. But I believe it is also possible to talk to stakeholders and find more case studies for HSBI.
The idea proposed in the negative tax video may not be the best, even though I see it as the least bad, it could be a solution, but again I understand that it would unbalance the current model.
I also understand the criticisms of vote buying, but I have not yet formed an opinion on this allegation; I need to read and study a little more.
Otherwise, thanks for the comment.