Here we go again...

I've been reading quite a few posts lately regarding people selling Hive and extracting value from the ecosystem. Others have suggested we should stop voting for those with bad KE ratios while some have suggested we should stop rewarding those continuously selling their rewards.

Fair enough.

There is however something I find rather curious about these conversations.

There seems to spend an awful lot of time discussing who shouldn't be rewarded while spending very little time discussing who should.

If selling Hive is bad then shouldn't selling less Hive be preferable? If having a good KE ratio is desirable shouldn't having an even better one be more desirable?

If continuously powering up is beneficial to the ecosystem shouldn't those continuously powering up naturally become some of the most rewarded people on the platform?

If these things are so important, I would expect to observe them reflected in the reward distribution itself. Yet, I am seeing more of the opposite happening.

It also raises another question I've been wondering about lately. If I wanted to determine what Hive values as an ecosystem, should I read what people are writing or should I simply observe where the rewards are going?

The answer seems rather obvious to me.

Actions are infinitely more honest than words.

If Hive values long term commitment then I should be able to observe it. If it values continuous staking then I should be able to observe it. Likewise, if having a good KE ratio is something we collectively value then I should be able to determine that without ever reading a single post discussing the subject.

Simply observing who is continuously being rewarded should tell me most of what I need to know.

Perhaps that's why I've found these recent conversations so interesting. They almost always begin by asking who we should stop rewarding. They almost never begin by asking who we should start rewarding.

I've also found it rather interesting that no matter where these conversations begin, they almost always seem to arrive at the same destination. Someone, somewhere, should be behaving differently.

There is however an elephant in the room I don't often see acknowledged. If certain behaviors are detrimental to the ecosystem, why are they continuously receiving the massive support of the ecosystem itself?

More importantly, if other behaviors are beneficial to the ecosystem, why aren't they becoming increasingly represented among its most rewarded participants?

Perhaps that's why I've become considerably more interested in observing incentives than determining who should have behaved differently. After all, systems tend to produce more of what they continuously reward.

Perhaps that's also why I've never been particularly surprised by many of the outcomes being observed. I've described Hive as a plutocracy before. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why I should be surprised that a plutocracy continues behaving like a plutocracy.