That was fun to listen to!
My issue with the proposal is that the focus is on an indivudual case without having a framework present. I feel that we can expect a lot more backdated claims from the popular figures (that feel they need to be compensated) in the future as the precedent is set with this case.
I find it hard to digest that we did not look at the broader questions first;
- should we compensate key figures for past performance (or losses) retrospectively?
- If so, when and when not?
- if so, how do we prevent this from being a popularity contest?
- if so, what is a reasonable amount (based both on the work aswell as the market conditions and impact on hive?)
I would had loved these questions being discussed first. I would have had zero issues with a 2026 proposal to fund the efforts of this individual (even at a higher cost), but that this case got excepted without defining a framework for future claims (they will follow!) rubs me in the wrong way.
Yeah I mean my thinking is everything that Hive has supported with these proposals has brought us to 6 cent tokens. And I get it, the market is really bad, but when you talk to anyone about 'crypto' and even web3 for that matter, Hive is never mentioned. That tells me what we are doing hasn't been working.