I am just starting to explore the Hive ecosystem. Due to the specific characteristics of both socially established traditions and the project's infrastructure, finding information is a unique art form that I need to master. As I study and search for information, I have accumulated some questions that I would like to ask at the source. In the Hive ecosystem, the source is the community—please correct me if I’m wrong. So far, I couldn't think of a better approach than writing a short article with the questions I’ve gathered.
I would sincerely appreciate answers in the comments to this article. Please note that within this article, I am not expressing any personal opinions, I have no complaints against anyone, and I am not making any statements—only applying logic. The purpose of this article is to get answers to my questions and clarify the situation, nothing more.
How well-established is the control within the ecosystem, and how effective is it?
To encourage certain actions, there is the stick and the carrot. Right now, I want to focus on the whip. After doing some research on the "stick" of the ecosystem, it was identified as a tool.
https://peakd.com/me/proposals
This is a screenshot from the voting page of The Decentralized Hive Fund (DHF). The community decides on the funding of this activity. The voting structure is as follows.
1 account contributed 63.7% of the votes for funding. A total of 219 accounts participated in the voting. Essentially, the top 5 accounts on the list fulfill the minimum voting requirement, enabling the proposal to receive funding from the DHF.
Can it be stated that the responsibility for the activities of Hivewatchers lies with the individuals who provide financial support to the project?
What mechanisms exist to prevent abuse by the very groups tasked with combating abuse?
Quote: “accepted as valid abuse which falls within the scope of Hivewatchers' work.” (source) — Who defines the scope of Hivewatchers' activities? Is there a collective decision, or do Hivewatchers determine their own scope of work? Is there a clear boundary where their authority ends?
Quote: “888 reports for Unverified Identity” — Is there a mandatory identity verification procedure within the ecosystem? How does this align with the spirit of decentralization? Could this be seen as a claim to absolute authority within the ecosystem?
We found an article referenced by Hivewatchers that regulates this aspect, so to speak: Identity and Content Verification Guide: When to Ask and When Not to. Additionally, we reviewed the latest Hivewatchers report dated November 1, 2024.
Here is the list of reasons (from the article):
- Contributor claims to be someone known, i.e., Barry Cooper or Jeff Berwick.
- Contributor claims to write for www.mywebsite.com.
- Contributor claims to be the creator of works found elsewhere on the internet.
- Curator found reasonable evidence to believe a contributor purchased a photo (e.g., via fiverr.com) and posted it for verification.
- Curator found a photo taken from the internet and posted for verification.
After reviewing several links from the report and reading the comments, the following picture logically emerges:
If you do not use social networks outside of Hive, proving your identity becomes problematic. Here’s a typical message sent in such cases:
"Hello.
Welcome to Hive.
To confirm your authorship of the content, could you please add the link to your Hive blog to your well-established social media account like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter (which has not been recently created).
After you add the link, please respond to this comment with the URL link to that website.
You can remove this mention once we confirm the authorship.
Thank you."
Is it reasonable to require users to have a well-established social media account? What if, for example, I don’t use any other social networks? Does that mean access to Hive is effectively closed to me? Who gets to decide this?
Here’s an example from the November 2024 report: link — a particularly striking case. This account has been active since January 2021 and has published several dozen articles. On October 8, 2024 (three years later), Hivewatchers approached the account and demanded identity verification.
We reviewed more than 10 cases from the November 2024 report marked as Unverified Identity. In all cases, the account received a standard message, and not a single instance provided a motive for contacting the user. No reference was made to a set of rules the user had allegedly violated.
How is it determined which users need to be verified? Who makes these decisions? For a new user entering an unfamiliar environment, receiving "hostile demands" like this right away—before they've even done anything—doesn’t seem conducive to user growth. In fact, it might have the opposite effect, discouraging potential new users.
Since the reports we reviewed don’t include specific motives for identity verification demands or reasons for claims, the logical conclusion is that this verification process is selective, random, and primarily serves to create the appearance of work being done. However, I admit that my knowledge may be fragmented, and there may be things I don’t know or understand. I would appreciate well-reasoned information to clarify this.
The same applies to all other "reasons" listed in the report, such as spam or plagiarism. In all cases (we selectively reviewed links from the report), the accounts received a standard message (essentially a copy-paste template). There was no explanation of the specific reason or situation.
If we draw an analogy with the real world: imagine the police randomly grabbing people on the street, shouting, "You’re a rapist, you’re a murderer, you’re a thief, and you’re a traitor to your country," and then dragging them all to jail, declaring them guilty without trial. Why doesn’t this happen? Because it would be madness. To punish someone, you first need to justify the accusation, prove it, or at least have solid reasons to suspect it.
That’s how I’ve always thought it worked—is that not the case?
The community funds the "whip" daily at $95, which amounts to $2850-2945 per month. Is this the cost of one report per month? Where are the "claims" made randomly and in a template fashion? Afterward, the user must prove that they are who they say they are, or that they didn’t write the text with ChatGPT? Seriously? Is this how the "stick" project was intended to function in the ecosystem?
It’s possible that I don’t know or understand something, and that’s okay. In general, this article is an attempt to learn more. In the beginning, I mentioned the two incentives: the stick and the carrot. These are fundamental factors that directly influence social dynamics and behavioral factors within the ecosystem. I want to understand the situation and get to the truth.
I would appreciate any clarifying comments, or perhaps links to articles that could help me understand what’s happening.
A special thank to @hivewatchers if they find the time and opportunity to clarify the situation and explain the nature of their activities. Their responses would likely be the most valuable.