Fuente imagen
First of all, I would like to start this post by thanking the entire Leo Finance community, its promoters and especially its excellent writers, for having served as catalysts for the understanding or at least informed access to the complex issues related to the world of blockchain and cryptocurrency. Without them, this post would not have sustenance or its realization could not have been possible.
The creators or experts I am going to mention below, directly influenced my decision to write this series of posts. For this reason and as a simple recognition, I highlight their names not because they are the best, but because through them I obtained the necessary motivation, as well as a better understanding of some unclear concepts, or because they simply allowed me to search for information related to this varied and exciting world.
Among the most prominent are: geekgirl, edicted, capataz4450, eos-io, celi130, hlezama, galenkp, eddiespino, this small list is just the tip of the iceberg. I have to acknowledge the fact that I have left out many other hivers. However, by mentioning the above, I make my public recognition to all the content creators who have contributed to educate and train this pseudo-cryptographer who has not finished learning the trade.
As you will remember, those of you who were kind enough to read the previous post, we presented five prospective proposals to serve as a roadmap for the following productions that will gradually appear. On this occasion, we are going to deal, from our limited vision and possibilities, with the exciting and controversial issues related to decentralization and democracy within the Hive.
In a broad sense, it could be said that, due to the profuse and intricate nature of their contents, expressing that these two universes (democracy and decentralization) are exciting and polemic is not a simple rhetorical phrase. Much has been written and will surely be written about them.
Therefore, in order not to rain on wet ground, the point at issue is not to focus on what exists or what is wrong, but on the opportunity to build a platform where these two aspects constitute real strengths and not a weakness or an accumulation of pending issues that are always overlooked because they are considered unhelpful or, even worse, not convenient.
In a very interesting post by edicted appeared days ago, which explored the definition and transformation of the middle class and its relationship with cryptocurrencies, I made a comment where I stated: that already dividing people by social classes was an anachronistic practice and to punctuate it further, I would add that at this point in time in social, economic and political dimensions to some extent counterproductive.
The world does not begin or end in the web 3.0, there are other frontiers. In that order of ideas, for a discerning eye, it is clear that in this era there are three types of people that we can find in any society, regardless of their ideology or culture. These three types of human beings are: the predators (politicians, oligopolistic centralized systems and criminals), the victims (the people) and the autonomous citizens (who could be empowered hivers) to give an example of so many.
The key to their classification lies in their intentions and their actions (work), regardless of the resources they have. The problem with the economistic vision is that it is very clear that there is a reductionism when weighing the human being looking fundamentally at his economic or financial aspect. I am not going to enter into ideological debates, which in my opinion are even more irrelevant, as well as problematic and worn out.
To put it in context, it is simply not religion, political preferences or available economic resources that tell what kind of human being an individual is within a community. On the contrary, their intentions (ends) and their actions (means) do.
Some may think that the above does not affect a platform or digital ecosystem, especially in the crypto world, and that if a member stays within the parameters, his actions, much less his intentions, are irrelevant for things to work. In purely practical terms, whoever thinks so is right and the rise of cryptocurrencies confirms it.
If that is the case, perhaps I am plowing in the sea, but in my humble opinion: if that criterion is imposed, we will be losing the great potential of blockchain and Hive technology to achieve a truly decentralized operation and a more effective democracy at all levels of power: economic, political, social and technological, and therefore in a large number of complex processes.
It should be noted that achieving total decentralization would be not only impossible, but also highly inconvenient. The same can be said with the achievement of a greater and better democracy. Personally, I am in favor of a more efficient process than the decentralization proposal, which I am currently analyzing, called multicentration or hyperconcentration.
To give an idea, it would be something like: that there is not only one ruling plutocracy, but all the necessary ones in each of the layers and niches of the platform. On the other hand, politically, to achieve a broad State and socially, an autonomous citizenship, but that is a topic for another post.
So one might ask: What is the point of this post?
To answer this question, let us turn to the proposal put forward in the previous article to analyze its first point in order to be more specific as to its scope. In this sense, the premise states:
- Create an index of decentralization and democratization within the hive. Trying to base it on aspects such as: its cost-benefit, accessibility to the different layers of the system and to new technologies, bidirectionality in the taking of certain decisions, the right to reply, the possibility of challenging some actions taken unilaterally and the possibility of making proposals, as well as participation in the projects that originate from them.
The profuse nature of each aspect of this first proposal, merits that in this post I only talk about accessibility within Hive. In my non-expert opinion, Hive is a digital platform that is on its way to achieving a high level of web accessibility for many reasons:
The first and no less important is the low cost of all the services offered, many of which are relatively free. Another is the possibility of easily interacting with the interfaces present in each medium without great difficulties for users. Also noteworthy is the possibility of accessing the contents presented by the different Hive ecosystem apps. And a very important one to work on due to its rapid growth would be: the possibility of management or access to virtual elements (Metaverse) provided by digital technologies that are becoming increasingly more complex. Therefore, it should not stagnate for greater universality.
In my opinion, Hive has the potential to achieve a universality that few platforms have achieved so far. The obstacle, which is sometimes notorious, is presented by the fact that in the hive there are many closed minds disguised as open. I will not delve further into the above, because it is not the intention of the post.
Accessibility is a plus, a strength that should not be neglected and must evolve with new technological developments.
In the next post we will finish analyzing the different topics of the proposal related to decentralization and democratization, since some of them are quite controversial and it is not convenient to deal with them in this space. I hope that some of the ideas expressed will be echoed for the healthy discussion of these. See you soon.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
¡¡¡Gracias por leerme y Apoyarme!!!
