I am for anything that brings more transparency, kpi’s / expectations to DHF funded projects.
There was talk of an overhaul of the way ValuePlan worked after hivefest. This talk has seemed to have fizzled.
As an investor and long time active user on Hive, i am not content with the stewardship of Value Plan or its overall results.
I do not personally have a problem with @guiltyparties
But i am openly calling for a change in his position.
More oversight and checks and balances are clearly needed.
The amount of expenditures over these last 4 years with VP compared to the lack of any clear ROI is shocking. That 1 un-voted position has final say over a project that dwarves all other DHF proposals is absurd to my viewpoint.
If we users are also meant to all be board stakeholder on hive… well it’s time for this board to come together and demand a new iteration of VP.
To me this is just common sense and not intended in attack. Quite the opposite. It is all rooted in hive finding thrive.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Agreed. This isn’t about attacking individuals — it’s about moving Hive governance from “trust me” to measurable cost vs delivery.
If Hive funds projects via discretionary issuance, then the ecosystem needs:
transparent issuance accounting,
recipients and downstream flow visibility,
and stake-weighted responsibility attribution.
That’s not drama. That’s the minimum standard for a serious treasury.