Our witnesses do not believe in the BIG man. Nobody takes up the challenge of running a startup business. Nobody is taking up the launch of some darn good service with HIVE as a chain, when access to the witnesses and the large stakeholders is darn difficult. I think only money rules, so when someone comes and buys a few million HIVE, then suddenly the whole community (including the power users and witnesses) is addressable. But why would someone invest that amount into HIVE?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree with you and someone did come along to invest in STEEM, a billionaire with capital to invest but we all know what happened there.
When you break it down, Hive is basically the underlying technology that allows people to build dapps on. It should be marketed to developers, then those dapps market to their end users.
If no-one steps up or believes in the "big man", then we have a problem because things will get stale, fast, like they have done, with a handful (maybe a couple of hundred out of the 3,500 active users) being active trying to promote on twitter but it's mostly an echo chamber.
With Hive code being open source, I just wonder if someone or company with deep pockets is watching this and will use the tech to drive their own vision forward with it all using the same rewards model or better iteration.
To some extent, you need a leader/driver to take things forward - Steemit created the tech and were the lead developers but Steem was just a poorly managed operation, which is a shame. Where are we going with Hive?
This is what I am talking about since we have Hive - de-centralized and community driven sounds great but....
You can have both though, that's the thing. Something can still be community driven with feedback from users and the lead developers/owners can act on it with the resources they have.
Posted using Dapplr
Absolutely agree! I think we shall have both, instead of we can have both. No open source project became a success, other than a few linux versions. But at some point in time it was Redhat leading the pack...Why? Because they had a support model around their open source software so companies could rely on maintenance of the software. HIVE has no such thing, and therefore no serious app developer / company will use HIVE. Not as long as the chain can be taken over by others. Not as long the witnesses are what they are, but too little involved in creating the eco-system. Not as long we still have outages (not sure if it is the chain, or it are the dApps); No business critical system can use a framework that is not 100% stable. Not as long anarchy is the name of the game. Not as long a few whales more-or-less own HIVE distribution including our proposal system. At least a governance structure shall be created that 1) drives development, innovation and all business aspects 2) involve the community in decision making. Yes, we have a governance system already, but it has major flaws. We need more 'central' bodies, call them institutions. Methods exists to make sure these are not the new controlling bodies managed by only a few. Companies managed by not only managers, but also its employees is experimented with a lot and proved to be successful in eg the last financial crisis (no bankruptcies at all, employees feel heard, everybody took a step back to survive with the company). Brasilian Ricardo Semler is a big advocate of such all-inclusive companies and help setting up many of them.
Wondering when those who run our chain, and our whales will see the light.
I really can't add anything to this, there aren't any nails left to hit on the head haha!
I see this with the company I work at and there's always constant feedback happening between employees (users) and the management. Everyone is approachable and ideas get discussed with the senior leadership team - it works really well and everyone feels a part of the picture.
Hahahaha, sorry for not leaving any nails. Anarchism is over rated; but that cant be voice in our community. But the combination of self management and collective management (which requires some form of leadership) is possible.
Great your company has their employees inclusive, they did certainly took a step towards the future. The company I ended up with not too long ago, is super traditional, with a few middle management layers who don't want to get bypassed by the workers... ie virtual teams are possible, but any form of decision making is done at middle management level without the specialist or topic owners in the meeting when decisions are made. Over time they will learn they will fall behind the market with such rigid approach.
My philosophy is: Best run companies are those without middle management; management as in managers. There could be a set of coaches, and leads (like in Agile and DevOps kinda structures, we have the chapter leads), but everybody shall be responsible for its own set of tasks and that same person will deal with whoever to get the job done, whether it be a direct team colleague, some other team colleague, or even the CEO.
It would be so good when all the witnesses and whales would have their own walkin sessions. But they dont. I dont understand why not. But they simply dont.