The only thing that matters for survival is. Value to the tokens.
None at the top care about that, Just code.
Without a Hive investment to the real world. There is no demand for the token. More and more HIVE will reach the market that less and less people see the value in investing and risking their finance.
Just like those at the top keep saying. No stake no say. Hive invest nothing to the real world to have a say. If Hive wants a say in a FIAT value of its tokens. It must have stake in the real world.
Instead te same projects just get revamped or the same people that know they have support throw out ridicules proposals they all vote on.
Yep, that’s the truth — token value is driven by actual utility within the ecosystem, not by branding. Without meaningful use cases, stronger economic incentives or improved network functionality, a new name doesn’t change the underlying dynamics. Hive needs structural improvements, not cosmetic adjustments.
And to be fair, there are projects already pushing the ecosystem forward — for example Magi, which is introducing new mechanics, new infrastructure and new economic layers that Hive didn’t have before. That’s the kind of progress that actually changes the fundamentals, not a rebrand.
Been hearing this for half a decade now....
There's never been an issue with actual utility here. We have plenty of examples of communities embracing different projects and using them daily.
The problem has been, and always has been...Branding.
And the massive lack of marketing for the chain.
I understand the idea behind a rebrand, but I think we’re forgetting something important: When Steemit split and Hive was born, many users didn’t follow either path — they simply stopped. Not because of the tech, but because their trust was shaken. Many never came back and will never try to do so.
If we change the name again, without solving the deeper issues, we risk repeating the same pattern. A new name doesn’t rebuild trust. Changing the name now would feel like wiping the slate again, and every “reset” costs us people.
I think a lot of people also didn’t stick around because the ‘brand’ this chain built has been to chase away content creators that never understood the culture.
People rugging their investors like you didn't help either
Me? Rugging? What did I rug? You have me confused with someone else.
Listnerds, CTP, need I go on? There's a perception that you screwed a lot of people over.
I disagree - if we agree on the fact we need more investors or users (if we stick to the social media part) or users that use the chain for business we need a USP - the USP does not come across as the brand is used by other chauns / companies. Steem(it) is still in the heasd of folks from the past being top 3 in crypto and a new approach, also linked to known names as Dan Larimer.
There is not a danger to change name again, there is more the chance to finallx find / rebrand to a name that everyone might see as a differentiator - no damage can be done as we have hardly a lot of users / people - we should get rid of the name.
Ok, ok buddy but the issue isn’t the name itself — it’s the trust dynamics behind it. Hive didn’t lose people because the brand was weak, but because the ecosystem went through shocks that affected confidence. A rebrand doesn’t fix that. If we repeat the same pattern without addressing the underlying issues, we risk losing even more......Branding matters, yes — but trust matters more.
An investment of 6 Million is needed to provide for an annual increase in demand for tokens.