<div class="text-justify">

I don't know about you, but entitlement annoys me. So many people these days seem to think that based on who they are or what they do for a job, entitles them to special treatment, regardless of how they act or treat others. 

For example on Hive, which often employs a community-based approach to support, there are some who believe they are entitled to support without consideration of whether they support others. For example, an artist feels that their art should be supported, but font feel that they should have to support others within their own artistic community.

Remenbering that this is a stake-based system where financial support generally comes through voting, how is an artist going to support others if everything they earn, gets cashed out continuously? 

![IMG_20220704_133913.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/23ywnxoWxomondsTcV6VZWhiEuCbqNN2A71hzCFscVcDRjgGt21S3tvD5kvdmQPrBVoYN.jpg)

This conversation topic generally gets met with a spectrum of resistance from agree to disagree, but I think which is generally based on what one believes is the value of distributed networks. For me, the value is largely from ownership and on Hive, that ownership includes the network itself, through owning stake. 

This ownership is not only for personal gain, as it also is part of the distributed security of the platform. On top of this, this owned stake spread also means that more communities can be supported over time by the niche communities, without being reliant on a narrow stake base of support, which is obviously risky, like having only one large customer for a business.

However, it is much harder to build broad support, especially staked support, since quite often people within niche communities don't want to keep their own stake, often not even partially. This means that they are happy to earn, but are unable to add to the earnings of others, which means being unable to help people like themselves. 

I think at least part of this issue is because most people are still in the old economic mentality, where they are encouraged not to own and be reliant on those "with" ownership. This ultimately leads to disparity in financial outcomes and ability to earn, causing resentment of those with, especially when they choose to shift their support to the next topic of interest. 

Hive however encourages a hybrid approach, which means that while there is reward for content contributors, there is also reward for content consumers. But, the reward for content consumers comes with the cost and risks of staking, as well as the opportunity cost of what else could be done with that value. 

For example, the opportunity cost of me being able to provide vote value of a couple dollars, is currently around about 90,000 dollars - the value of my stake. Yet, a lot of people expect to benefit from my vote (and others of course) but feel entitled to not start wearing any of that opportunity cost themselves. 

That is fine because once the value goes into a wallet, the wallet owner chooses how it is used. But, since this is a social network with stake as the reward mechanism, those with stake often start questioning those who only extract on whether the value of what they offer is worth more than what they take away - And often, it is seen as not being that valuable. 

This often causes community conflict, because it raises the question of what is valuable, but again - stake based system - *everyone knows this.* This means that while people can voice their opinion about what holds value or not, unless it is backed by stake, the *financial value in terms of HIVE* is dictated by stake. This means it might be valuable on Facebook, Instagram or by Sotherby's - but that isn't what makes it valuable on Hive. 

Knowing that stake is the mechanism, if arguing about the HIVE value of content, stake is the voice. If arguing with someone about the value of content bit unwilling to accept any of the risk or opportunity cost of holding stake, the social voice becomes far less powerful and probably lose, unless it can convince others with stake to support, making the power of that voice reliant on others again - support that can be removed. 

It doesn't matter if this is for the benefit or detriment of Hive as a whole, it is the way the system works. And, when it comes to those who want to sell, it is because of this system that people are willing to buy and stake, because it gives them a voice, as well as the benefits of getting rewarded for their consumption, and the satisfaction of rewarding others. Without this demand on the token, what content creators earn, is *valueless* and pointless. 

However, a lot I'd people don't want to dive into how the economocs work here at even a basic level like presented here, even though it affects them directly. Instead, they want to hold onto their misinformed entitlement believing that what they offer is so valuable, they deserve to be rewarded. And when those rewards don't come or those
with stake disagree with their view of what is valuable, they react badly, like petulant children.

It is a pattern that has played out hundreds of times over the years and each time, the same arguments come up. Yet, almost invariably, the unstaked choose not to dive into the economics of the system they have opted-in to, and have all kinds of reasons why they should be treated as an exception, that all of the same code at the social and technological level that everyone else lives by on Hive, shouldn't apply to them.

This sae pattern of behavior is the default in society and leads to renter mindset and disenfranchisement, which is part of the reason the world is such a mess. People expect to be looked after, regardless of whether they take ownership of looking after themselves and others. They then appeal to authority to step in and say that their lives are valuable to society, without actually considering what value their life brings to society. It is essentially, antisocial behavior, but expecting that society to still provide. This makes people reliant on others who will see a decreasing reason to offer support.

As said, there is always a spectrum of agreement to disagreement on this topic, but it is good to consider who is willing to put skin in the game, accept risk and opportunity cost and, actively participate in the discussion.

I have been involved for a while and it has been a long time since I have heard much new in this regard from the unstaked. However, the staked have made continual improvements over the last 5 years, fundamentally improving the experience of the average user. 

If you aren't willing to support people like you - why would anyone else? 

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@tarazkp/stake-in-the-clouds)