<div class="text-justify">

>Everyone wants the price of Hive to go to the moon.

And perhaps it will one day, but in order to do it consistently and stay up, there has to be demand for the token as more than just a pump and dump coin. Part of this of course comes down to userbase wanting the token to stake or use for a range of other cases, and that will likely require *quite a few* more users than there are today. 

![image.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23ujtji3we2fCNwx3zj7QtaWoksRnEKSCbdy1kymwTURtgp6T3P7roP5GUBynAvxVNGJU.png)

A lot of people compare Hive to centralized social medias like Facebook and Twitter as the standard for what Hive needs, but that is not quite the case. There is a fundamental difference because Hive is decentralized, and that is that ad revenue is not the focus. A lot of people want advertisements on Hive because they are looking at the income, but is that what we would really want?

The centralized platforms are profit-driven for their shareholders, and they don't care how that income is made, as long as it is. The platforms have generated a huge amount of money, but they have also caused a huge amount of problems because of the profit-at-any-cost model they adhere to. The cost of course are the many social costs that have been facilitated through the platforms, because they are clickbait economies that don't care about what is actually on the platform. This is why they don't want to be liable for curation, because they are dependent on low-quality, polarized content that drives the worst behaviors. 

> Yet, even with billions of users, they are silos.

And they are the worst of silos, because they are using algorithms to *heavily curate* the content to tailor it to the individual user. This means that out of tens of millions of daily posts, the user only sees a tiny sliver, which is not only tailored for their tastes, but also designed to maximize revenue for the platform. Through these algorithms, they can nudge preferences toward higher-paying advertisers. 

But eventually, the mass-market social platforms will have to radically change form, because the information landscape is also changing. While we are still in the wilderness, the last decade of mis- and disinformation that has flooded the platforms and altered public discourse, combined with the growing input from generative-AI, users will start to demand a different experience. 

> One they can trust.

While we are not there yet, the only practical way to verify and validate information at the level that will be required, will be through decentralized, *trustless* networks. This will of course give AI a healthy usecase, because the volumes of information that need to be filtered, is immense and is only growing. But, it is going to need *many platforms* as sources of information in order to provide a trusted result, because trust has been lost in the central authorities - perhaps, rightly so.

Throughout the last few thousand years of human history, we have relied on authority as a form of governance. Yet, there was very little question as to whether that authority was actually qualified to lead and make decisions. Over the last few hundred years as people had access to more information directly (literacy and printing), that has increasingly been brought into question, because people could share experiences and observations, and see that things weren't matching up. The kings and queens made way for the religions, then the religions made way for the governments, now the governments are falling to the corporations and next, the corporations will crumble into the communities. 

Gone are the days where one rule is going to be accepted by many, because people have started building the sense that they can make their own decisions, without interference from authority. For instance, the internet has meant that all that government content censorship has been wiped away, and people (often to their own detriment) can consume what they want. The identity politics has made people want to group themselves based on arbitrary traits, however that will likely shift into grouping based on small community traits. 

> The average American.

*There is no average American,* just like in most western countries at least and most other countries too, there are no average anybodies. It is no longer possible to make sweeping statements about a nationality, because there is so much variation within. There is not only racial, religious, and cultural diversity, there are also ideological and preference diversity, as well as all of the other factors that come into play. The difference between one individual and another who otherwise look the same, might be far greater across the spectrum of preferences than two people who look very different.

> The average no longer applies. 

Where this is all leading is to changes in what people value, and that also means that the value of what people value is going to change also. A community doesn't have to have a billion random people in it to be valuable, it just has to be able to attract people who are interested, engaged and willing to add value into their own interests. 

>To illustrate, a thousand people watching the ballet, can have a higher net worth than a hundred thousand watching the baseball. 

However, the advertisers will pay a lot to get their products into the eyes of the thousand people, because they are banking on *volume.* And that is what the centralized platforms offer the advertisers, and that is what they pay for - targeted spam. But, because of the unhealthy incentives that drive interactions on those same platforms, it will get increasingly difficult for all involved, as advertisers will demand content moderation for their positioning, but the platforms won't want to do that, because that makes them liable for the content, which means that they will also have to face lawsuits on what that content leads to in society. 

> There are already many suits about things like bullying and teen suicide.

Because one rule isn't going to fit for billions of their users, they may have to split themselves up into self-governed communities, but that will fundamentally come under pressure to keep splitting, essentially dismembering the behemoths through decentralization. This will in itself get driven by legislation too, where for instance governments, based on their own agendas, will do things like "ban TikTok", which might affect TikTok as a company, but will drive users to find alternatives. 

> There are always alternatives.

And there always has to be, because if there is not, we are screwed. The corporations have the goal to monopolize to control the entire market they are in endlessly, but the only thing that stops them from doing so, is having a choice. The way we consume information and the information we consume, is also a choice, but we seem to only just be waking up to this fact, in the same way that we are waking up to the fact that governance through authority, has alternative governance structures also.

Hive may or may not ever realize its true value on the token, but that doesn't mean that the value isn't being created on Hive. This community is part of  multiple test cases, that are exploring alternatives to what is clearly not working, and finding better ways. Better doesn't mean that it will make more money than a Facebook or Instagram, but it can still be better for the community of users that support it to be so. 

But if it does get traction...

*Look out.* 

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>

Posted Using [InLeo Alpha](https://inleo.io/@tarazkp/chaining-the-future-jvt)