I am failing to see the added value for Hive from this. We already have several explorers, and not too long ago, a new one (HiveHub from Peakd) started on the same path. This latest version is adding some visual analytics and reports, which is also something HiveHub and Marky's recent proposal is doing. All of them are being funded for the same, if I am correct, so that means more public funds wasted. A collaboration here will save a lot of costs and public money.
On another topic, and this comes from our particular situation, I am sure it is not the same as the whole world, obviously. Why is a budget of nearly 3K per person needed, or are the infrastructure costs that high? Isn't this proposal running a public infrastructure that can be used for the same? https://peakd.com/hive-139531/@mahdiyari/proposal-public-haf-database-and-hafsql-maintenance
P.S.: Sorry if I sound too direct or hard. I am just trying to find reasons to vote for it, and English is not my first language.
To reiterate what we are building, we are not solely building a front end for a block explorer, we are working on several HAF-based dapps (which ship with public hive nodes) and provide public APIs for all devs to use, stemming from hive API nodes. So they are as decentralized as Hive can be.
Block Explorer UI is a front end that is based directly on those APIs. Having multiple options enriches hive ecosystem, which is why all of this work is also open source, so that anyone can spin off a version (currently hivescan.info and explore.openhive.network both run BE UI)
In terms of budgeting, a dev on average costs 3k, that is correct. Infrastructure cost is much lower, and is only needed for additional development and testing servers (mostly for backend devs). The proposal you referenced is actually running some of our backend code, but in a live environment, hence our point above.
@hivecuba Absolutely, we have updated the proposal with a preliminary roadmap. Please have a look above
I am failing to see the added value for Hive from this. We already have several explorers, and not too long ago, a new one (HiveHub from Peakd) started on the same path. This latest version is adding some visual analytics and reports, which is also something HiveHub and Marky's recent proposal is doing. All of them are being funded for the same, if I am correct, so that means more public funds wasted. A collaboration here will save a lot of costs and public money.
On another topic, and this comes from our particular situation, I am sure it is not the same as the whole world, obviously. Why is a budget of nearly 3K per person needed, or are the infrastructure costs that high? Isn't this proposal running a public infrastructure that can be used for the same? https://peakd.com/hive-139531/@mahdiyari/proposal-public-haf-database-and-hafsql-maintenance
P.S.: Sorry if I sound too direct or hard. I am just trying to find reasons to vote for it, and English is not my first language.
No worries at all, appreciate your feedback.
To reiterate what we are building, we are not solely building a front end for a block explorer, we are working on several HAF-based dapps (which ship with public hive nodes) and provide public APIs for all devs to use, stemming from hive API nodes. So they are as decentralized as Hive can be.
Block Explorer UI is a front end that is based directly on those APIs. Having multiple options enriches hive ecosystem, which is why all of this work is also open source, so that anyone can spin off a version (currently hivescan.info and explore.openhive.network both run BE UI)
In terms of budgeting, a dev on average costs 3k, that is correct. Infrastructure cost is much lower, and is only needed for additional development and testing servers (mostly for backend devs). The proposal you referenced is actually running some of our backend code, but in a live environment, hence our point above.
No worries about English, you're doing great :)