RE: RS Burn Engine: Daily Report #40 We are under attack....

Hello @acidyo,

Thanks you for your message. You have raised a vital question about how "We" as an ecosystem, should allocate Our shared resources to build value for Hive. It is exactly the question We should be discussing.

Your feedback, and that of other members, has led me to an inevitable conclusion: the current model for my initiative, which relies on post rewards, has proven not to be the right path. It generates a conflict that overshadows the project Our good intentions.

The underlying mission, however, I believe remains valid and vital for Hive. Strengthening Our applications, like the games that serve as gateways, is fundamentally an investment in new user acquisition and retention, in the network reputation as a space for serious projects, and in its onchain activity. It is precisely because the 'Why' is so important that I am searching for a 'How' that is correct and that builds up rather than divides.

And this is where I would like to ask for your perspective and opinion as one of the most respected and experienced users in the network.

Knowing that a direct donation model often lacks the scale to make a real impact, and that the post rewards model generates justified conflict, my question is:

from your experience what principles or criteria do you believe a community project like this should follow to operate in a way that IS considered constructive?

I am not looking for a complete solution, but for wisdom on the fundamentals.

Is there a 'hidden path' or a hybrid model that the community could accept?
What kind of structure would you consider legitimate?

I am willing to redesign this project from Zero, but I want to do it on a solid ground. Your perspective would be valuable, not just for me, but for anyone on HIVE looking to build value without causing division.

Thank you again for your time and for pushing Us to learn.

Although I don't fully agree on the why, i.e. pumping up gaming tokens' value or making their nft's more scarce is going to magically bring new users to the games, I can tell you why the how is wrong from my perspective.

You're footing the value exchange to all hive stakeholders for "content" that is barely content, just a paragraph daily that may be unique while most of the rewards are being generated to purposely devalue hive in exchange for a token that a few stakeholders benefit from. Why should Hive stakeholders accept that?

When you make the decision to devalue hive in the form of selling hive on the markets, you lose something when doing so, but through curation you're not losing anything as long as the posts don't get downvoted as you've stated a few times in your recent posts. You're attempting to take value from hive for a token that only a few benefit from rather than spending your own hive you've earned through effort and participating in curation to buy them yourself or rely on delegations/donations. I'm pretty sure the reason you've amassed these amount of votes on these many accounts is also because of the interest of the voters to benefit their token holdings at the cost of hive. It wouldn't make sense else why you're getting this much rewards considering you're barely engaging unless downvotes occur.

Another acceptable form could be authors donating beneficiary rewards without a quid pro quo where only if they donate will they get curated and ignoring others posting in the game's community because they didn't donate, for instance. General curation rules apply.