I agree that all proposals asking for labor reimbursement should have details of what that labor is. Most of us can see a $ amount listed for two servers and get a pretty good idea whether that is a fair price or not. Labor costs are a lot harder to visualize intuitively and need details, the more the better.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It is shame that most of the proposals are doing the exact opposite ("the less the better" approach) which for me is unacceptable. I think that the sooner we take some sort of a “stance against vague description” the sooner the proposals will contain more details.
Now when I double-checked it, I see that you too fall into the category of "not voting for Return Proposal" AND "voting for Hivesigner". Could you please explain your stance and thought processes to me? Because I sincerely fail to see the value as I tried to describe in this post.
I think Hivesigner and Keychain are both important to the long term success of Hive. I feel Hive needs more than one option for an ease of use key storage system. Do we need more than two? Maybe, but unless it is amazing I probably wouldn't vote for it.
I'm not voting for the Return Proposal at this time because I think the threshold is already too high. Not way too high, but too high. There are a lot of things Hive needs, like better image serving. I'm more than willing to pay for that because without it Hive looks bad. If a bunch of proposals start being approved that just seem to be raiding the cookie jar I'll start supporting the Return Proposal. But for now I'd rather pay for things we need to be a top quality blockchain.
Ok thanks for your honest explanation. I understand your perspective now.