Hi everyone! Long time no see.
Today, I am here to tell you all about a plan, initially proposed by @blocktrades and has been in discussion for a bit now.
Hive Dev Fund: AI Agent Developer Tooling Pilot Program
TL;DR
A pilot program to fund LLM code assist/agent subscriptions for Hive developers, starting with Claude Code. The goal is to boost programming productivity across the ecosystem. $10,000 total over 2 months (~170 HBD/day) until it ends.
What is this?
This proposal creates a Hive Dev Fund a pilot program that provides LLM code assist/agent subscriptions to qualifying developers. The idea is simple: AI coding tools have reached a point where they can realistically multiply a developer's output by 10x (see 10x engineers, used to be a meme, but now quite the reality). At $100–200/month per developer, this is one of the most cost-effective investments the DHF can make in Hive's development/programming capacity.
As mentioned before, the idea was initially proposed by @blocktrades and evolved through discussions.
Why does this matter?
Quite a few devs on Hive (especially those in countries where $100–200/month is a significant expense) are either not using AI coding tools at all or are cobbling together free alternatives that don't deliver the same results. The difference between using the best available tools and using free alternatives is massive.
How does it work?
Application Process
Developers apply through a straightforward process:
- Apply - Submit an application demonstrating your involvement with programming as a whole (bonus points for Hive related dev) (existing projects, Git contributions, known track record, etc.) or a clear plan for what you intend to build.
- Review - Applications are vetted based on developer history, quality of prior work, and the viability of proposed Hive contributions.
- Approval & Disbursement - Approved developers will receive funding for their subscription.
During the pilot program, please write and share a post on Hive why you'd like to participate in the program and receive funding and what are some of your plans. It doesn't have to be a lengthy "explain yourself" post, but something basic, with your credentials. GitHub link, past projects etc.
Should the program continue, I will be creating a dedicated website for it with a much more appealing/data rich system.
If you are a brand new user without a Hive account and would like to apply to this program, please send me a message on Hive's Discord server and I'll help you create one.
Tiers
For the time being during the pilot program, we are focusing on Claude Code subscriptions, which have two tiers. $100 (5x Max) and $200 (20x Max) applicants will be granted either of these packages depending on their application.
Accountability
After each month, recipients are expected to show tangible progress whether that's reaching a close-to-MVP point on a new Hive project, meaningful updates and maintenance on an existing one, or concrete contributions to Hive core infrastructure. This isn't maintenance for the sake of calling it maintenance, we're looking for real, verifiable output that reaches the hands of the users.
Funding will continue as long as the developer is producing good work and the Hive Dev Fund is able to cover it. The goal isn't to kickstart someone and cut them off, it's to remove the financial barrier that prevents developers from using the best tools available.
Scope
We are currently looking for development in the following:
- dApps and frontends — New applications, features, and improvements
- Core infrastructure — Contributions to hived, HAF, Hivemind, and related systems
- Open source tooling — Libraries, plugins, and developer tools that benefit the ecosystem
Why Claude Code specifically?
There was some discussion about whether to be tool-agnostic (like OpenAI Codex). The decision to use Claude Code comes down to a few practical reasons:
- Core team alignment — The core Hive development team already uses Claude Code, and repositories are being optimized for it.
- Ease of Use — Claude Code is currently the "easiest" (debatable, ofc) tool to start using AI coding agents.
Of course, these are subject to review at later.
Budget
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Total Proposal | $10,000 |
| Duration | 2 months (~60 days) |
| Daily DHF Rate | ~170 HBD/day |
This is a pilot program, therefore, the budget is intentionally conservative to keep the barrier to approval low and demonstrate results before requesting additional funding. Therefore, any funds that are not used (and should the program be cancelled after approximately 3 months funding plus some extra time) will be returned to the DHF.
Why a pilot?
This is deliberately small in scope. A pilot program allows us to:
- Prove the concept
- Establish evaluation criteria
- Generate tangible results
If the pilot is successful, a follow-up proposal with expanded scope and budget can be submitted based on real data about developer output and program effectiveness. Honestly, in the future, I would love if Hive Dev Fund became something like a "small scale DHF" that can help fund developers' contribution to the Hive ecosystem, on a smaller scale, yet faster and hopefully more effective than the DHF itself as there are no vote thresholds.
Who is going to be the manager of this?
Many of you may know me from my work operating api.deathwing.me, one of the most used public API nodes on Hive, serving over 180k unique users monthly at one point. I've also developed Drone (a custom API middleware, now replaced Jussi) as well as FRIDAY (a notification bot for Discord, operating for 5 years at this point), and have been a consensus witness (top 20) and active contributor to the Hive ecosystem for years.
I'll be handling the application review process and fund disbursement. Administration costs are relatively minimal. (AI agents, LLM spendings, we're aiming to have minimal "human" administration cost as much as possible, especially during the pilot program)
Your Feedback Matters
This is a community-funded initiative and your input matters. If you have questions, suggestions, or concerns, please share them. The goal is to make Hive development faster, more accessible, and more productive for everyone involved.
Vote for the Proposal
- PeakD: Click here
- Ecency: Click here
- Hive.blog: Click here
The proposal sounds very interesting and could be a great help to independent developers. In my case, I don't usually have much time to devote to these types of tasks on a daily basis, but with a tool like this, I think I could make much better use of that limited time and be more productive.
You can count on my support.
It's an easy WIN WIN for the ecosystem.
That's where my head is at. I love WIN WINs!
Ur seriously falling for this crap?
I expect this is likely to be THE most impactful DHF proposal ever if we get a sufficient number of qualified applicants.
If all the Hive programmers master using Claude Code, we should see a huge leap in productivity. Personaly, I estimate that I'm at least 10x more effective as a programmer with it.
If even a fraction of Hive’s active developers reach a genuine 5–10x productivity gain, the compounding effect across the ecosystem could be enormous, not just in shipped features, but in maintenance, iteration speed, and overall developer morale.
Why do you think funding tools for community members is a good way forward, instead of eg funding work results? Why do you think this is sustainable? And last but not least, what do your think is in fact needed to grow HIVE ecosystem and usage?
Funding tools vs Funding results: This is a no-brainer. If the devs don't have the tools, then we'll have far less results and they will cost a lot more.
Just do the math: the cheapest reasonable programmers you can find will cost you more than $1K USD per month. If they use Claude Code, for $200/month, it's like paying $1200 for $5000 worth of programmers. And that's assuming the cheapest programmer you could find, and you'll spend a lot of time trying to find a good programmer that would even work that cheap.
As to what will grow the ecosystem, there's two methods, it's not rocket science either: 1) provide more useful functionality (e.g. develop more software) and 2) market it better. At this particular time, I think method 1 is more easy to approach than 2.
And Opus 4.6 is unbelievable. If it doesn't go through we get left behind
Bro kimi 2.5 on opencode is free. Is close as good to sonnet.
20$ claude is also pretty good to start with. Is not like it will pump out 100x devs.
And ppl with skills and experience dont need it for free. A open source model hosting would be different and used with Hive credits ( for example). Some market mechanic to refinance the use.
We don´t need more development, we need more / better marketing! The product is already decent, but nobody knows about it!
And we need a business model that is more than a musical chairs game where all financing comes from investors
Yeah with a shrinking userbase we should probably attempt to address that instead of trying to build for that shrinking userbase
I doubt that users don't stay aroung because we don't do enough marketing. If we can't retain them, that means we don't fulfill their needs.
Then we should focus on developing tools to retain our users. Look for good usecases where Hive Tech can be used outside of our bubble. Not wait on companies and other projects to find us, but to find different projects or companies and find out if Hive Tech can benefit them in some way so we can approach them with a proposal.
No EVM or smart contract compatibility is probably the single biggest barrier to Hive being adopted and has been for years now.
Ethereum has Solidity. Solana has Rust-based programs. Both have massive ecosystems of tooling, tutorials, and developer infrastructure around their smart contract platforms.
Hive doesn't have general-purpose smart contracts at all.
Everything is built around custom operations and layer 2 solutions like Hive Engine, which is useful but nowhere close to the flexibility or composability that smart contracts offer. A developer who knows Solidity has zero transferable skills to Hive. That's a massive friction point.
That's not to say that we have to ditch the current custom JSON operation approach, but layer 2 solutions are a bandaid, not a true solution to the smart contract difference compared to other blockchains.
I also think our wallet and tooling UX is dated. Metamask, Phantom, Backpack. These wallets are polished, well-known, and integrate with thousands of apps. Hive Keychain works and stoodkev did solid work, but it doesn't have the same level of polish or recognition. The account creation process alone, with keys and resource credits and account names, is confusing for people coming from other chains where you just install a wallet and go.
And one of the bigger things is we have noo mindshare in the broader crypto developer community.
Solana and Ethereum have hackathons, grant programs with serious money behind them, accelerators, VC ecosystems feeding into them, and cultural presence on crypto Twitter. Hive has a loyal community, but outside of that community, most crypto developers have either never heard of it or think of it as "that old Steem fork for blogging." That perception problem is real and it compounds everything else.
We could easily fund these efforts. Heck, if I knew there was the opportunity to me to be able to work on these efforts and get funded for them, I would do it in a heartbeat. I build fun tools and dApps for Hive, but large and ambitious things we actually need require time and for many of us, we're working other jobs so that time needs to be funded. Right now where do devs go to even get funding for these things, a proposal that won't be seen?
Yeah it's not really about marketing and just pissing away money on ads or whatever initiatives we've tried and failed at before. But as you said at least developing for outside of our sphere a bit more.
We've had decent features added to the front-ends here and there, but again mostly just for anyone that's already here. Nothing that solves much for anyone beyond.
💯 Agree. HIVE shall seek and find the market, not they other way around. No tech ever became successful by simply creating more tech.
The non stop downvotes is driving everyone away.
If they don´t come in first place they can´t stay. And most of the people left didn´t do so because the product has too little features. Of course it would be better if it is that developed like e.g. X, but this proposal won´t reach that anyway.
We shall onboard more users by partnering with compelling services with their own community. Let other services external to HIVE benefit from the HIVE blockchain. For this we shall go biz dev mode. Find those services, talk with them, propose interesting enhancements to their service and community involving the HIVE blockchain. Close partnerships in that way. When needed, even offer dev work for integration work. This means, DHF funding biz dev and everything that comes with it. Obviously only to those that master the art of this type of work. Pay on delivery instead of pay per day.
Paying for tools, like this proposal, is not the right way to go. In the end it’ll be lot of wasted money, with little useful results.
This proposal seems pretty reasonable to me. I think using AI could help how much time Dev work takes and reduce spend.
Also, in my opinion, this proposal could help decentralize dev work and people LOVE decentralization in crypto.
No receipts, same people again & again get funded, project fails, no receipts Ever shown, repeat. We are in a 98% plus collapse in price & close to that since daily active user base in 2021. The DHF needs to be reduced all around. It’s wild people who make a big deal about KE, don’t seem to be bothered by huge drain of funds via DHF waste & abuse. I respect u a lot! I’m not critical of a different opinion, it just doesn’t make sense. Some other whales are in on it and always vote for this crap, but u are a fresh new kind and i just wish you’d look at the history of DHF past 5 years to see how this normally goes. Maybe this one is the exception to the rule, but not likely. Same names same rinse repeat DHF nonsense. !PIZZA !LADY
Price action is the best marketing for any crypto. We sure love to dump ours.
And it’s only going to get worse. Glad I got most my stake powered down at .60 cents 13 months back. I don’t see blindly holding stake when almost every whale supports the DHF abuse & fraud as In some way being loyal. I look at it as I’m voted against this crap by powering down. I kept 10K to function part time but sold 30K at .55-.67 cents Jan 2025. I can’t compete with the whales so I powered down and sold when it was obvious we’d collapse during Bitcoin bull.
I wish I wasnt sentimental when it comes to hive. Good thing it's just a fraction of my portfolio 🤭
I hear ya! 😶
i thought hive is a charity?
btw what you holding fren? something good that goes 1000000x? :D
Devs create the product, the ecosystem, and the hype. A solid dev program is always a good bet. Solana shows this clearly.
If Solana had the same level of marketing as Hive, nobody would knew about them.
you got a point. i think so. maybe as a dev and my bubble i think this is a good markething. i first heard of solana cause of hackathons. see it as a core component of their marketing and ecosystem growth strategy.
its a win win using it to drive innovation and attract developers. also helps generate buzz around new technologies.
but it all depends what the blockchain wanna to attrack. i feel that hive stop with dapps inovating and i heard of hive cause whas one of the first to have dapps.
Or gets bullied off from it. I dont see how to give away free claude code ( there is a 20$ subscription) helps. Is not like they become enterpreneurs with it.
And if they dont have 20$, there is a market mechanic that proved it is a waste to fund it.
There are a lot of free and good models like kimi 2.5 ( close to sonnet 4.5). PPL that cant research stuff their own to build should not get funded by DAO.
But looks like this will get funded like another rally car.
Actually, I'd like to see this proposal as a way to cover both bases. If we could have another app, game, tool etc. that garnered attention similar to how Splinterlands did a couple of years back, that would mean a massive surge of new users.
like ai makes ppl enterpreneurs. What magic
This proposal is pretty clear on what the goals are and I think trying to leverage AI as an ecosystem is a good move. If more people use stuff like this it can reduce a lot of spend.
I don't think our issue is marketing.
I honestly think we should try to focus on having a good time so the platform is a fun place to be. Having more fun will go a long way imo.
If we are having a good time, more people will want to come here and have a good time, onboarding new people should be easier if we have more fun on HIVE.
I don't want to come across as negative here, because I love Hive. I've been around since the Steemit days, and the developer community is genuinely strong even if it's smaller than other blockchain ecosystems. And I appreciate that this is a modest pilot with a conservative budget. That's the right way to test an idea.
But I'd honestly rather see proposals funding specific projects and developments on Hive than AI subscriptions, even at this scale.
The proposal does mention accountability, and I think that's good. Developers showing tangible progress after each month is better than nothing. But here's where I get stuck: if we're measuring success by output anyway, why not just fund the output directly? If someone builds a great dApp or contributes meaningful infrastructure work, fund that. You skip the middleman of monitoring whether a subscription is actually being used for Hive work, because you're paying for results instead of tools.
And that's the core issue for me. There's no way to verify that these subscriptions are being used for Hive development specifically. A dev could use 80% of their Claude Code usage on freelance work and 20% on a Hive project, show the Hive project as their monthly progress, and nobody would ever know. I'm not saying people will do that, but when you're spending community funds, the structure should make that kind of thing difficult by design, not just hope it doesn't happen.
What I think would be more beneficial is starting with a list of things the community believes Hive actually needs. Tools, dApps, services, infrastructure layers, documentation, onboarding flows, whatever. Then fund those efforts directly with clear scope and milestones. Tie the money to deliverables. That way the community sees exactly what it's getting, and developers have something concrete to be accountable for.
I also want to push back a little on the 10x productivity framing. AI tools in the hands of a skilled, experienced dev are an absolute force multiplier. I've seen it firsthand. A senior developer who already understands architecture, system design, and debugging can use these tools to move at genuinely impressive speed. The AI handles the repetitive stuff while the dev focuses on the decisions that actually matter.
But for inexperienced juniors, or even some intermediate devs I've worked with over the years, these tools can be a trap. They generate code that looks right, passes a quick review, and then falls apart in production because nobody involved actually understood what was being built. The 10x claim assumes a baseline level of competence that not every applicant is going to have. AI doesn't replace the need to know what you're doing. It accelerates people who already do. That's a big difference, and the vetting process would need to be pretty rigorous to account for it.
None of this is me saying the idea has no merit. I get the reasoning, and I respect that it's being pitched as a small pilot rather than a massive funding ask. But if we're going to spend community money to grow the developer ecosystem (especially during what appears to be a bear market and negative sentiment in crypto), I'd rather see it go toward bounties for specific features, grants tied to shipping working software, or direct funding for projects that people on Hive can actually use. That feels like a more accountable path to the same goal.
In my case, I'm a senior dev and I already use these tools, so I don't need a subsidised subscription. I would rather be paid to work on a problem or task instead.
The DHF has been 90% waste & abuse. Don’t feel u need to apologize or preference what you are going to say. We must be critical! As most aren’t! Appreciate this detailed reply!
!PIZZA !LADY
Appreciate that. And you're right, we shouldn't have to soften every piece of criticism with disclaimers. If something isn't working, it's not negativity to say so. It's just paying attention.
I've always had a soft spot for Steemit and Hive. It's a really nice developer experience (even if we don't have smart contracts), I like how you can do on-chain stuff (although smart contracts would be really good).
What I'd really love to see is a dedicated platform built specifically for task-based Hive development. Something like a bounty board or project marketplace where the community defines what needs to be built, developers pick up the work, and payment happens on delivery. No long proposal cycles, no needing to know the right people, no whale politics deciding whose work matters.
The DHF's fundamental problem isn't the concept. A community treasury funding development is a great idea. The problem is that the approval mechanism is stake-weighted, which means the same dynamics that play out everywhere else on Hive play out there too. A handful of large stakeholders effectively decide what gets funded. If you're not on their radar, your proposal might as well not exist. And if you are on their radar for the wrong reasons, same deal.
A task-based system sidesteps a lot of that. You define the work, you define what done looks like, you set the price. A developer delivers or they don't. Nobody needs to campaign for votes. Nobody needs to write a blog post justifying their existence. The work speaks for itself.
Obviously something like that still needs governance and quality control, you can't just let anyone claim a bounty and submit garbage. But that's a solvable problem. What's harder to solve is the political capture that happens when funding decisions are tied to stake and social influence, and that's exactly what a task-based system would route around.
View or trade
LOHtokens.@geneeverett, you successfully shared 0.1000 LOH with @beggars and you earned 0.1000 LOH as tips. (1/3 calls)
Use !LADY command to share LOH! More details available in this post.
Great comment, the problem in this case is that tool/app/project based funding has hurt Hive and DHF before. So people are incredibly reluctant to fund any projects nowadays. In quite a few cases we had people pitching their ideas about the new shiny thing, receive over $100k in funding and then deliver basically no tangible results or results that did not make any sense or help any Hive user in any way (or help attract more users) before the funding eventually dies out and they disappear.
Not everyone manages the DHF proposals daily, so you'd have a proposal proposed for an entire year, made so much sense, got paid thousands of HBD per month but have next-to-no accountability, simply because no one is actively managing the project from an "investor" perspective.
That's why I believe this project might be more successful, of course, we are not going to invest in some no-name person with a subscription, we would like to vet their previous projects and contribution first. I'd love to see some senior devs who are mingling with AI but haven't had the opportunity to pay for an expensive (yet strong) subscriptions.
As I said in the post, if everything goes well, in the future I'd like Hive Dev Fund to be something akin to the DHF system itself, albeit on a smaller scale. Where tasks, small projects and ideas can get funding, just not in the hundreds of thousands level.
That's a really fair point, and I think you've actually identified the exact same problem I'm describing, just from the other end.
You're right that project-based funding has burned Hive before. People pitching big ideas, collecting six figures, and delivering nothing or next to nothing. I've watched that happen too and it's frustrating. So I get why the instinct is to go smaller and more controlled, and honestly, I respect that this proposal is designed that way. Conservative budget, pilot scope, vetting applicants. That's all sensible.
But I think the lesson from those failed projects isn't that we should stop funding projects. It's that we were funding them wrong. The reason people walked away with $100k and no results is exactly what you said: no one was actively managing it from an investor perspective. No milestones, no stage gates, no "deliver phase one before you get phase two money." The accountability structure wasn't there, so the money just flowed until someone eventually noticed nothing was happening.
That's a fixable problem. If you fund a project in stages tied to deliverables, the worst case scenario is you lose one milestone payment before you cut someone off. That's a completely different risk profile than handing someone a year of funding and hoping for the best.
The other thing milestone and task-based funding does is open up a single feature or problem to multiple contributors. Right now, most proposals are one dev, one project. If that person gets busy with their day job, burns out, or just disappears, the whole thing stalls. But if you break a large feature into discrete tasks, three or four developers can work on different parts of the same problem in parallel. You're not betting everything on one person's availability and motivation. The work keeps moving even if one contributor drops off. That's just a more resilient way to build software, and it's how most serious open source projects operate outside of Hive already.
And what you described wanting for the future of Hive Dev Fund, a smaller scale system where tasks and small projects can get funding without the massive overhead of the DHF, that's basically what I'm arguing for too. I think we're on the same page about where this needs to go. I just think we should start there now instead of routing community funds through AI subscriptions first and evolving toward it later. The task-based model is the stronger foundation, and I'd rather see the pilot built around that from day one.
By extension especially with the new Claude multi Agent Experimental mode that launched today, if we were to approve this proposal then should development hours be cut significantly saving Hive thousands of dev hours in funding?? Also The danger is every half of Venezuela will be applying for free Claude. I trust you would manage this accordingly?
I mean, half of Venezuela could apply, doesn't mean they would get approved.
Well if half of Venezuela applied that means our user base would go through the roof!
The would be like 15 million users.
Send it!
No, that’s not what it means. Hurt Locker my brother! Come on man, u can’t be serious?
In this instance it was not being serious LOL
This same mind begins utopis???
😂
Heh
Exactly!
Nothing really depends on us, so why bothering with multiple proposal posts? We should burn all the remaining DHF to start funding anew
I think that would be a rough way to approach reducing our spend.
I mean this proposal has the potential to get move devs on HIVE and get those devs up to speed very quickly. If we are leveraging AI in this way it could reduce spend over the longterm.
I feel like this proposal is reasonable.
This is definitely worth testing out. We need more developments in DAPPs that can bring in more users.
They’ve done a great job so far, user activity down 95% since 2020/2021 and we keep funding same nonsense hype ideas with no results. difference is now we are bleeding as a chain and need to stop spending like it’s 2021. We should be reducing DHF funding all around, not continuing to rinse & repeat same hype ideas with no results.
This is great I’m sure to apply.
Lol. Didn't you make enough from utopis?
Trumpman in the house!
Proposal done, and all of the best with your efforts!
Quite disappointing how many accounts I’ve supported keep supporting hype proposals with same lack of helpful results. Always enjoyed supporting your charity but this seeing all you guys keep helping bleed funds via DHF waste & abuse is quite frustrating 🙁
I.... tentatively really like this as an idea to pilot test. Management is always a challenge, but frankly, you are a great candidate. Thank you, voting.
I dont know if a new proposal would help with the current situation but at least it is one that look for those that can do more with less.
Regarding the scope, creating an MCP of Hive should be a priority in this case. We have use Claude Opus 4.5 and beyond the good results in many aspects, Hive remains a difficulty for certain actions. An MCP build by Hive core developers and with the use of IA to speed up the process would be heavily beneficial to accomplish a good result from this proposal.
Note that Claude Opus and Claude Code are very different things. Claude Opus on its own didn't amaze me when it came to coding software.
Claude Code (instrumented version of Claude Opus) did amaze me. And it makes programming Hive super easy.
Got it. I haven't tried that, but I think this means an MCP will help those who can't afford Claude Code and don't have the experience to apply for this pilot program.
Yeah! sure! and i wanna apply, im doing everythig with free tier. $200 is almost my rent value! lol
Saludos,Creo que Hive debería lanzar un juego sencillo y adictivo,
como un clicker para móviles o una ruleta, que sea fácil de usar y que pueda hacerse popular rápidamente. La idea es que el juego ofrezca pequeñas recompensas en Hive u otros tokens, pero sin perjudicar el Hive orgánico, algo completamente separado de las publicaciones y los upvotes.
Estoy convencido de que mucha gente se uniría rápidamente. Solo se necesita que expertos analicen cómo este tipo de juego podría generar recursos y tener un impacto positivo en el ecosistema. No tengo mucho conocimiento técnico, ni económico, es solo una idea que se me ocurrió. .Sería genial que; los desarrolladores la consideraran y la hicieran realidad! Hoy en día, la gente busca formas de entretenerse, especialmente en un mundo tan complicado como el latinoamericano . La clave es que esto no afecte a los creadores de contenido, sino que, al atraer a más usuarios, se genere una mayor demanda de Hive, incluso entre aquellos que no crean contenido. Solo es una idea que tengo, ¡un abrazo a todos!
I heard hive hackathon
@mengao @xvlad @r4topunk @shiftrox
This is a genuinely interesting and timely proposal. The idea of lowering the barrier to high-quality AI tooling for developers feels like one of those leverage points where a relatively small amount of funding can unlock outsized returns for the Hive ecosystem. The emphasis on real, verifiable output and monthly accountability is especially reassuring, because it keeps the focus on shipped value rather than abstract experimentation.
Overall, this feels like a smart way to invest in developer productivity, particularly for contributors who may have the skills and ideas but not the disposable income for premium tooling. I’m very interested to see how this unfolds and what kind of projects and improvements come out of it.
The timing is poor so I think if the authors decide to vote it through they need to:
That's a sticking point for me right now too. Terrible timing with the market in freefall and what appears to be the start of a bear market. This proposal feels like a luxury type idea that would have been okay a few months ago when things were positive and up, not in the red. I wrote a reply that proposes we don't fund subscriptions and we fund deliverables instead.
They need to buy the subscriptions for the AI Agents so I do not think they could use the internal market for this.
Oh summer child they do - they convert convert DHF HBD into Hive and sell/swap it on cexes. We just want to exclude conversion part and introduce buying Hive
I don't really understand what you are trying to say I guess that's why you called me summer child 😆
Maybe, maybe I am one as well. What's important, in order to use DHF HBD for any expense you need to swap it (HBD has few options while Hive has more and greater liquidity) thus DHF beneficiaries convert HBD diluting Hive
The world can be a dark place so if we are both a summer child maybe that's a good thing because we can ignore the darkness and have a good time 🤣
I very much understand what you are saying now. I think the DHF is inherently dilutive regardless of how it’s done. I think the practical answer is to support the return proposal and only support proposals that bring value and have the cost be reflective of whatever that value is.
It's hard to assess which proposal are the best in cost effectiveness. Some would put more weight on marketing some on developing new functions...and none of them are actually working.
There's the burn proposal that you should support and I wished @blocktrades would also support it.
We are bleeding users and price and nothing is done to address immediate problems, just more hype and nonsense. And it gets supported. Unbelievable. And people wonder why I sold a year ago at .60 cents 🙄
How many Phases do you have planned?
Are you sure this might reduce current DHF free mint HBD? Most of these devs are using those subscriptions & enjoy $300 per day just for prompting.
That is 100 or 200 $ per month per dev who got accepted.
Where did u get 300$ per day figure?
good luck
Congratulations @deathwing! Your post has been a top performer on the Hive blockchain and you have been rewarded with this rare badge
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
I saw "AI Agent Developer" in the headline & decided to support this already.
I have to come back to this.
$PIZZA slices delivered:
geneeverett tipped hurtlocker
@geneeverett(2/5) tipped @beggars
Please vote for pizza.witness!
I'm not a developer, but I think it's high time for something like this. We mustn't be neo-Luddites.
This post has been shared on Reddit by @bhattg through the HivePosh initiative.
Excited to see this pilot program! Supporting Hive developers with AI coding tools like CloudCode will definitely boost productivity and innovation across the ecosystem. Looking forward to seeing the results! 🚀
If we don't approve this Hive gets left behind. The progression over at Claude is unbelievable at the moment. Normal coding is for dinosaurs at this stage.
I pay $20 for ChatGPT, and I can use it on OpenCode without paying extra. I haven't tested Claude. Is it much more powerful?
I'm not much of a coder; I'm more on the PM side of things, but maybe it would be interesting for the devs in @mantequilla-soft and @aliento.
I think that the proposal is great, but it's bad timing, I guess.
Why not create the fund some other way? Why use the DHF?
Claude Code completely destroys ChatGPT for programming. I had this same kind of discussion with a bunch of my programmers at the beginning. They were using all kinds of AI products (other than Claude Code) and I basically had to force them all to switch. But they've all seen the results now.
Another point a lot of people don't get: Claude (the LLM) and Claude Code are different things. A bunch of my PeerVerity team programmers were using Claude with Github Copilot licenses and only paying $10/month, so they were also wondering why I was so forcefully pushing a $200/month license. But Claude with Claude Code performs at an entirely different level, because of the instrumentation around it provides.
Thank you for the explanation!
Makes more sense now.
We briefly discussed it in our latest report on @mantequilla-soft, fast-forward to minute 46:30.
We agree that it's a great opportunity to develop faster, and development budgets should be smaller. I think we will apply, maybe not me directly, but @meno and @kesolink are considering it.
Similar, depending on the situation at the time (compute, model quality etc.) one may be better than the other. Harnesses (like OpenCode) are regularly updated too which may result in different results even if using the same exact model.
Out of curiosity, how?
Author rewards, beneficiary rewards, witness rewards, there are many ways. Using the reward pool in general, that way we don't bring in extra inflation.
Many whales are mainly voting on things like the @hbdstabilizer, and it's getting a lot of rewards.
This is for the last few weeks:
https://peakd.com/@hbdstabilizer/activities
But then you're forcing one person (or a few persons) to pay for the project, technically, this is exactly what DHF is for.
I don't think hbdstabilizer is a good example though, all rewards (bonuses on top) hbdstabilizer receives goes back to the DHF anyways.
But this way, people can actually downvote if they do not agree.
Yeah, maybe not the best example, but my point is that there is enough power, even at this valuation, to cover that and more.
I think I will make a post to give more context.
To the same argument, people can simply not vote for the proposal if they disagree.
I'll get more feedback from the community before deciding if I will support or not.
And will talk with the Mantequilla Soft guys about it too.
sounds like a waste since opencode kimi 2.5 is free...
PPl that are not able to use free models in combination with claude ( even 20$ one) should not get it for free.
Is like nothing on hive need to have a market mechanic.
Anyway there is a reason the token is close to worthless