RE: Snaps Container // 8/31/2025, 10:00:00 PM

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Snaps Container // 8/31/2025, 10:00:00 PM

khaleelkazi in Snaps • 10 days ago

There are a lot of “if” statements here that all make a lot of assumptions. The only solution to what you’re posing is if we don’t curate people who use our platform

That seems oddly backward. I also think you’re using the words “gaming the system” very loosely

Gaming a system implies there is a predictable path to cheating. This is not the case

Can you use the platform a lot in hopes of getting curated more? Of course

Can you delegate to the platform’s curation account to receive daily LEO payouts? Yes

The two have nothing to do with each other. You could also delegate and make posts and never get curated. Delegating is a non factor for curation and therefore delegators cannot “game” by delegating

You can’t knock a platform for curating the users who are using their platform.

The argument against us is that we have pay4vote which is far from the truth. We have an ecosystem where using all Leo products is highly encouraged. People use them all and our core community is the most active community in terms of involvement. Punishing that makes little sense

10 days ago in Snaps by khaleelkazi

0.00 FOODIE

Sort:

Trending

[-]

mrtats 10 days ago

There are a lot of “if” statements here that all make a lot of assumptions. The only solution to what you’re posing is if we don’t curate people who use our platform

If statements are not material to the argument. You can remove the ifs and the argument will stay the same. Because the data clearly shows this, no matter how you deny it.

If the majority of the content you curate is published from inleo frontend. It makes it easier to game it doesn't it.

This if statement is there to confirm what you have just said, that you curate content mostly published from inleo.

If I use inleo and if I am highly active creator I will more likely to receive a vote

These if statements do not materially change the argument. People that use inleo and that are highly active are more likely to receive votes. That is what you established yourself by your question.

if I have premium then my posts would be more likely to shown to the curators because it gets promoted.

This if statement does not change the argument, you confirmed that premium gives you favorability because you appear in the lists more.

You didn't deign to answer my question about ecency. Would you agree that they are most similar to leo.voter?

I am going to add another data here.

14.3% of rshares given by leo.voter goes to big delegators(~5000HP+) while on ecency only 1.2% of rshares given by them goes to big delegators.

0.00 FOODIE

[-]

khaleelkazi 10 days ago

I’ve never looked at Ecency, so I can’t say whether it’s a fair comparison. I do know they have the same points2promote your content system

Premium is the same system. Your content ranks higher and it’s done via subscription instead of paying with points or paying with hive (how PeakD does it)

Our curation parameters are to look at the INLEO feeds and read/upvote quality content based on the quality of that content / the engagement / substance it provides to the community

The data can paint two stories:

There are people cheating
The community we have is highly reflexive and if they use one product, they use all products

Since I know nobody is cheating the system as I personally look at curation, I am left with #2 as the interpretation of this data. I’m not denying your data, I’m denying the framework you’re viewing it with

If a business wants to build itself on hive, shouldn’t they be allowed to upvote their members above and beyond any other members?

Should 3speak be able to curate only 3speak uploads?

Should splitnerlands be able to curate only SPS battles/content?

Should Ecency be able to curate only Ecency-published content?

Should INLEO be able to curate only INLEO-published content?

Since I know that this is all we’re doing and there’s no gaming of our system, I think the argument needs to set a standard for what a hive project is allowed to do. Since we now must ask for permission to curate our consistent, loyal userbase

0.00 FOODIE

[-]

mrtats 10 days ago

If a business wants to build itself on hive, shouldn’t they be allowed to upvote their members above and beyond any other members?

Sure but not with delegated power by said members. There is some wiggle room here, but leo.voter is beyond that wiggle room in my opinion.

Since I know that this is all we’re doing and there’s no gaming of our system

This is what you claim, others don't have to agree with what you claim.

I’ve never looked at Ecency, so I can’t say whether it’s a fair comparison. I do know they have the same points2promote your content system

Ecency points can be earned by anyone that use the ecency frontend. It isn't a strictly paid system like Premium. Likewise peakd does not keep all of the hive it receives for the promotion and do not run a curation service themselves.

They are not the same system.

The data can paint two stories:
There are people cheating
The community we have is highly reflexive and if they use one product, they use all products
Since I know nobody is cheating the system as I personally look at curation, I am left with #2 as the interpretation of this data. I’m not denying your data, I’m denying the framework you’re viewing it with

You can interpret it as however you want, but others are also entitled to their own interpretations. When you say I know nobody is cheating the system. It is your words against data. I don't trust your words, I trust the data.

Anyhow I am not blocktrades, whatever you say to me will not change his opinion or interpretation. Nor do I have enough stake to influence anyone's opinion other than sharing the data.

0.00 FOODIE

[-]

khaleelkazi 9 days ago

Fair enough. I disagree with the take that this is a bad way to build on hive. Having a reflexive feedback loop can be a great way to entice and engage a community. There is no strictly “pay here and you’ll get voted” nor any predictable way to put any capital or delegation in to get any upvotes. The only predictable factor is that we pay delegators in our token for delegating HP to the community curation account.

This has been done (not only by us) for years on Hive. IMHO it is one of the main reasons anyone should build here this reason has even been stated publicly by a lot of builders/witnesses over the years (build on hive and grow your audience using the unique social rewards model).

I’m not refuting what the data says, merely that if you look with the lens of a reflexive feedback loop that the people who get voted tend to be the most hyperactive on the same platform, it can paint a very different picture.

The thing rubbing me a bad way is:

This was never discussed publicly
This was never discussed privately
There is no set standard (and if there was, we’d follow it)
Ongoing attempts to communicate with BT & surrounding ppl have been met with 0 replies

A very similar situation happened where we requested DHF funding and Blocktrades voted the return, defunding all projects, in order for us specifically to not get funding.

Hopefully you (and others) can potentially appreciate my POV which is attacks without discussion. I am someone who is very open to feedback and if something isn’t on par with a standard set for the whole chain, I will gladly adjust.

Lack of communication is the issue here. Our users don’t want to be downvoted as much as anyone else on hive doesn’t want to be downvoted. If BT disagrees with the model, he should’ve just said something rather than use this alt account and 0 communication.

Wouldn’t remedying the problem with communication be better than just pissing off an entire sub community on this blockchain?

Just my $0.02 and while we disagree on the above discussion and interpretation, I appreciate that you at least were willing to go back and forth a few times

0.00 FOODIE