I think I'm of the opposite mind here. It should be much easier to get some funding... and then harder to get continued funding. Dbuzz for example has been filling blockchain meetups and events in the area of the world with half the population. If they can show results from the investment why not let them keep going to grow the ecosystem. We have some pretty big problems to solve in terms of retention and ease of signup, and it's not like our place on the top 200 is improving...
After all, our DHF fund continues to grow, not shrink. Now is the time to get these incubators hot, not later.
By this metric we are employing the equivalent of 1.5 enterprise level developers. Hive is known as a "Hobby Chain" and this is one of the reasons.
It is not without a cost. All these peoroposals with grossly inflated costs results in increased sell pressure. Stake holders incur this cost. Most of these proposals are extracting 10x value than they provide to Hive.
Hive is a very tiny community, yet we are spending $2.5M+ a year on proposals most of which not doing anything to help Hive grow. This is real money that ultimately is dumped on exchanges for Bitcoin and other tokens.
While I hear “we have the money and we have to spend it on something”, the reality is this reckless spending has an extreme cost to stake holders.
This is also true, and I agree. I'm making investing as much of my payout as possible into hive power a goal of mine... after all the more invested we are supposedly the better incentivized we are to provide some value even after our proposals are gone. I should hit Orca by the end of the year... Which I believe will be about 40% of my payout. The alternative is losing some skills to other projects with VC funding. The DHF isn't perfect, but it's still better than nothing.
I disagree, with how much we are spending, how much we are getting, and the size of our community, nothing would be greatly better at this point. Not having $2.5M sell pressure would be more value than most of the proposals provide.
Well... the terrible chain that shouldn't be mentioned doesn't use their DHF... has a market cap of 127M and we have 187M... so at least we know where no dev pressure puts a marketcap.
You also can't just assume all payouts are sell pressure. And if you did we could assume all HBD savings payouts are sell pressure... which is 1.5M. And your witness votes for 20%APR.
And when I say the DHF fund is growing more than it's paying out... JUST the HBDStabilizer has contributed over 3.1M to the DHF which also removed several million from the content curation... So it's a net negative on sell pressure versus not having one.
they also have SBD priced 530% higher than our stable coin resulting in massive payouts for post rewards. Their daily volume is also well over 10x ours, we are typically 2-10M/day they are like 60-100M/day. For example today we had 6M and they had 80M. It's not even close, add in the massive additional inflation from $5+ SBD price is huge.
Fundamentals be dammed lol
Their proposal is not a clear cut dev work one. Obviously theres more to it. But they stated dev work in proposal so anyone should be able to judge what they deliver in that aspect of the % of funding received.
The question posed, unrelated to dbuzz, was just related to judging clear dev work and how their received pay relates to the work they deliver. Is it justifiable? Are some slacking off? Are they underpaid? Are their gitlab commits apart by months. Are we overpaying some?
The example of Netuouso was given here. We all know how that went.
Can we keep devs on Hive accountable for the money received or can they just decide one day they dont feel like it and not work for 2-3 weeks on anything.
Its guys like you that should be able to answer that question since you understand the work, the business, the skill needed.
How do you see it? Are we paying for dev work for some of these proposals more than we should?
Yeah, We are paying more for some things than we should but we are also paying less for some things than we should. Given how hard it is to get any funding though, we aren't paying enough. But it's not all dev work either, and the cheaper a dev is the more it costs to get them to a crypto conference, flights and hotels don't get any cheaper... nor do servers. It's also harder to employ any dev with these skills as it's much easier to sell out and work for the Justin Sun's of the world.
Specific complaints should be put on the funding proposal posts, and brought forward to new funding posts. In general it's still too hard to use the DHF for a newcomer. (I edited the original comment to include a comparison)
So obviously you are aware of it. I assume other devs are as well. How do we deliver that information outwards to the community in a non-confrontational manner?
Who isnt delivering work for the funding they receive. Can other devs offer to do the same work for a reasonable amount?
Can we maybe put all the dev work under the same umbrella with a vetting system in place.
Just making sure that the devs know their work is being watched would make sure they dont slack off and be comfortable like Netouso was.
Someone that understands the material should do it. The community doesnt. And because of collegial relationships devs have with each other I dont think anyone is willing to.
So we need a system in place where we have someone that has a purpose, a job to do so.
Its entirely possible that some folks receiving funds dont do anything anything for weeks and just keep stuff running in the background.
https://peakd.com/hive/@hivewatchers/the-hivewatchers-and-spaminator-operational-proposal-for-the-period-2022-2024
For me personally this is the most detrimental of the proposals, and nearly every comment on it is negative. But it's still funded. I don't think we have a problem with airing our grievances. @bitcoinflood also likes to ask some of the harder questions on otherwise positive posts. Enough people value this project, so it remains part of the ecosystem. I'd like to see @deathwing proposal for a image server mirror funded, but there are enough questions on that one that it's not supported. The current state of the DHF is really tight and while it's something to think about, it's being thought about and we have the receipts.
😅 You know that wasnt the purpose of the post. Judging proposal merits. We can make that a discussion another day and everyone can have their opinion.
Im solely asking a question if we can check if the devs getting paid for dev work are actually doing that work for the money they are paid and if that dev work is worth the money based on reasonable open market values.
I do believe that's the case in general. Nearly all the work is opensource. I was just pointing out the culture here isn't one of keeping your head down to stay in anybodies good graces.
Ok. A concrete answer. :)
money doesn't grow on trees nor does crypto token values. It comes at a cost no matter how much wants to say it doesn't. If you're paying someone HBD then they are going to be selling it off which creates downward pressure in order to finds these projects.
Just because you have money to be spent doesn't mean you haphazardly spend it. These projects need to be brining in MORE value then what they are asking for otherwise it's a BAD investment for the DHF.