In order to move forwards we need to LEARN from the mistakes of the past. Instead of dwelling upon the mistakes, we need to FIX what still IS BROKEN so that we do not continue down the same path that we were on before.
Hive has seen some major changes to what we had before, many agree that these changes open the doors to further decentralization and opportunities for public input.
How can we ensure that the needs of this new situation at hand are delivered?
Well, this is where we need to take a look back at what “was” and then FIX IT by implementing the needed improvements/changes.
In this post, my goal is to show the differences in the governance from before the fork (more precisely, from before the sale of Steemit inc.) and now.
& show what is needed for this new decentralized governance to function better.
In order to describe the difference, I will use graphics that I believe are suitable and are recognizable to most. As they depict a parallel to what many people are familiar with and that is “governance” that we see depicted in “parliaments and congresses” from all over the world.
So this is what we had;
Steemit Incorporated was at the centre of just about everything as the central body with all the genesis mined/ninja mined tokens under its control:
Then we had the Top 20 witnesses who were the governance and who called the shots as to finalizing any decision by applying the new code and by doing so confirming the consensus.
The triple S logo of Steem could represent all stake holders aka “Steemians” who too often considered themselves to be “bystanders” or “onlookers” to what the final decisions were, without any insight into anything that was going on and likewise without a means to express their voice. The “Vox Populi” (voice of the people) was definitely not a major player in the process, as we saw in practice all too often.
Then, we had the rest of the witnesses and if applied to the usual graphic it would have looked like somewhat like this:
However, it didn’t. It looked like this:
There was absolutely NO effective means for any Steemian or non consensus witness to have an equal right to say anything in what went on.
Hence the crossed out stand where people could have their say.
SO WHAT NEEDS FIXING?
Well, if it isn’t obvious yet, then here it is, again using the same well known graphics:
We no longer have or need a centralized entity as what Steemit inc. was. Since the DAO or what was referred to as the “Steem Proposal System” was coded in, the role of Steemit inc. somewhat became redundant.
We had a means of putting proposals in by anyone and them being voted on as per the ecosystem.
THIS IS WHERE HIVE CONTINUES!
Note: For the purposes of this post, I will use the terms DAO and SPS, simply because most people are familiar with them and the goal here is to get a clear message across with as little confusion as possible.
So we no longer have a centralized entity in the centre of it all, instead we have the coded in proposal system which is voted on by all stake holders.
Yet we still do not have a fair and equal means of presenting these proposals.
Posts on front ends are often lost in the masses and only those that are voted on by people who too often follow each other and vote on each others posts are pushed to the “top of the page” into the “popular” category. Then along with that come the votes looking for added curation, too often via automated voting mechanisms, adding to it all!
We still lack a means for witnesses to have a say without being drowned out by the “popularity contests”.
As depicted in the above picture.
HOWEVER, that is not all, now we do not solely depend upon ‘witnesses’ to present us. We can now as members of the public submit proposals.
Yet, we do not have a means to present these proposals without being affected and drowned out by the current means of publically submitting and presenting proposals.
So this now calls for a new need, a need for a fair and equal means of presentation.
Which would look like this:
What this would ensure is a fair and equal means of representation for all proposals.
It gives OPPORTUNITY the equality that it so desperately needs for a decentralized governance model to function.
Stake holders should be the centre of everything when it comes to the governance and with the “DAO/SPS” we have a means to ensure that the voice of the people and the input from the people can be a part of the ecosystem. Yet, in order to make this effective, there is a need for a fair and equal opportunity of representation, especially in the smog of all the data (i.e. ‘posts’) that is being flung around all over the chain.
Decentralization is the goal.
So let’s start looking at how to ensure it is implemented in ways that are not divisive, but actually all inclusive, with as much equality of opportunity ensured for each and every individual that makes up a unique part of this society that we call Hive.
Note:
This is a topic that I tried to address within the old ecosystem in which there was a centralized authority/company. As expected, nothing was ever done about it back then. Some of the terms I used back then were not 100% spot on. i.e. I used the term “democracy”, again in my attempts of getting the message across in an effective way and that lead to a “rabbit hole” of “tomatoe vs tomato”. Hence why I left out all the “political” terms in this post.
Yet for reference purposes, here is a link to the post from yonder year, so as to show consistency in attempts of FIXING what needed to fixing.
https://steempeak.com/politics/@jackmiller/understanding-the-importance-and-the-real-roles-of-witnesses
I hope that this topic gets noted and put on the “to do list” of our governance.
As it definitely needs addressing at some time ASAP.
& not get swept under the rug as what was the practice on Steem.
Looking towards a better tomorrow,
Yours truly
@jackmiller
BTW,
Start the DECENTRALIZATION of the Hive Blockchain, simply by voting for a diverse range of witnesses!
if you would like to cast a vote for my witness campaign, here is the link:
https://hivesigner.com/sign/account-witness-vote?witness=jackmiller&approve=1
or, if that doesn't work,
Simply go to https://peakd.com/witnesses
and manually vote!
3 Years of serving as a backup witness on the Steem blockchain, plan on doing 33 years on Hive.
&
Some relevant links:
My own blog/site: https://jackmiller.info/
Link to this post on my website: https://jackmiller.info/blogging/272/
My Hive.blog: https://hive.blog/@jackmiller
My Peakd wall: https://peakd.com/@jackmiller
My Twitter wall: https://twitter.com/JackMillerOZ
& for those still on Steem:
My Steempeak wall: https://steempeak.com/@jackmiller
My wall on Steemit.com: https://steemit.com/@jackmiller
Hive links that you may want to check out:
All about Hive: https://hive.io/
Hive on Github: https://github.com/openhive-network
Witness list: https://hivekings.com/witnesses (by @drakos - Witness)
Hey Jack. A voice for the everyday user would be good. My main thoughts are that a shift to one vote per coin could also improve fairness. A user could have a bigger impact putting their full stake to one proposal (or witness).
Having dpos stake cary weight across 30 votes for witnesses and ??? Votes on proposals lessens decentralization as it favours large stake over small. Having stake split amongst however many votes you use levels the playing field I think.
I know there are people advocating this type of setup, I hope they can gain some traction.
P.s. Once we moved away from the witness wars, it was nice to return my witness vote to you mate. It hurt a bit to unvote you and @quochuy to support the top witnesses. One of the first things I did on Hive was to return those votes back to you guys. (After a little look around the place).
Keep up the good work mate.
Jk.
We really need to find a proper way to prevent this stuff from happening again. The witness vote process needs to be reviewed.
ty.
ref: https://hive.blog/hive-139531/@quochuy/more-hive-blog-and-hive-wallet-contributions
People of good will working together and hearing each other out are definitely a means of getting things done for the right reasons.
Really appreciate you taking the time and effort to make it happen and a big thanks to all those who supported the merge request.
Cheers.
That too!
For the Proposal listings it could be as simple as adding a Top Menu item at the end, after "Notifications"
So as to draw peoples attention and promote everyones contribution/input.
(or some other solution to that affect)
That could be a good start to getting things going and promoting an all inclusive, more transparent, open and public approach to things.
Small steps towards big things.
Just a suggestion!
As for the witness voting there are things that can be improved there too, but it is representative to the ecosystem which is based on DPoS.
As for the proposal system, there is definitely a need for improvements/changes to the way proposals are presented and made visible to the public. So that all proposals can be equal in opportunity.
We no longer have a centralized body or committee deciding upon the dispersion of funds that are allocated for the further/future development and expansion of the chain and all things relevant to the chain.
Hence it is dependent upon the community/public.
Thus there need to be adjustments made to suit these needs and further ensure decentralization.
In the past I stated that there is no need for anyone to fear the public, we should all embrace an all inclusive platform for transparent, open and public discussion where the constructive individual is valued and respected.
Unlike in real world governance, where the governing bodies tend to fear the public and keeps dividing them into groups and "paying them off with their own money" (from taxes etc.)
We do have a huge potential to set things into motion that could literally show the world how it can be done and how it should be done. With that type of approach and attitude, we will get the support from millions of people from all over the world.
Again, looking forwards with the wealth of "hindsight 20/20" to back it!
A post like this was sorely needed. Great to have all the info here and explained to readers (steemians & hivers alike)
Cheeky bugger!
I am sure that there are many ways of getting the important information across to everyone, personally my approach is one based on my own experiences through the learning process. Hence the comparison to governance as it is depicted to us in real life.
Hopefully nobody nitpicks away at the comparison, as it isn't intended to suggest that our governance is like that of those of nations. Hopefully that rabbit hole won't be entered again! "Fingers crossed".
& thanks for the compliment! ;)
What I try to remind the naysayers that they are probably presenting a decent point for consideration but this isn't something you just share an opinion on.
A contribution has to be valuable and for it to be valuable it has to be a real effort to do. Roll up your sleeves and slap on the elbow grease: it's gonna be some hard yakka but oh so worth it, even if only 50% of what's on the table so far comes to fruition!
You have a great vision of the true decentralization. That's for sure should start by the right curation. Who will see my proposal if I will not be in trending. What even an against one will be created and voted by stake holders. That already happened with the one about the power down. Can we call that decentralization is this case ? Maybe we have to limit some from voting. It's not fair if one person can beat a lot just because he/she has more money. We should approve those who vote on proposals and count by numbers of verified people, but not by stake. That will be true decentralization.
Equality of opportunity should start with equality of representation.
If a person has an equal opportunity to present their case/proposal, then the fundamental concept of "equality of opportunity" is guaranteed from the very start.
However, any concept that may lead towards an "equality of outcome" literally divides the community and as such opens the doors to "divide and conquer". Something that we must not allow to happen as is suggested in the title of the post "
We definitely need to look towards means of ensuring that the voice of the people "Vox Populi" is ensured in an effective manner, no matter what the economical model may be, as without the voice of the people there can be no decentralization.
Many have to date talked about other applicable decision/voting models for various things and I dare say that these alternatives could be applicable in some cases. However, only through transparent, open and public discussions can we get to consensus which is truly based on the voice of the people.
I am glad that you mentioned this in your comment, as my post is concentrated on the core foundation of ensuring decentralization and the fair and equal opportunity for ideas and notions such as the one you just mentioned to be heard effectively.
ty for touching on the topic. Hopefully others will too.
I love what i am reading here @jackmiller, @valued-customer and others.
I am still in the (always) learning phase, having only been involved with Steem and Hive for about ten weeks. But my understanding is growing, and from what i can see, the Matrix-8 Platform would be a perfect solution.
I won't attempt to explain it here but ask you Jack (I've already asked @valued-customer in this comment) to take an in depth look at Matrix-8, beginning here: https://peakd.com/hive-153630/@atma.love/matrix-8-questions-and-answers
and being sure to read this thread https://peakd.com/@atma.love/re-ura-soul-2020327t18743810z with @ura-soul
and continuing here: https://peakd.com/c/hive-153630/created
In the meantime i will ask the designer of Matrix-8 John Huckel (@matrix-8) to respond to your post and the comment thread.
Your work is much appreciated. Tomorrow i will review my witness votes so i can re-vote for you Jack (i unvoted you to vote tactically during the Steem/Tron war - time for me to re-review my votes here on Hive).
Namaste
Atma
Most of the proposals are highly technical other than the proposals for marketing and promotion. For the average Joe hiveians it is not easy to understand what impact the proposals would have on the blockchain once they are implemented.
It may be a good idea to have an advisory committee with members who are qualified in blockchain tech and marketing to screen the proposals, then present them for public voting with their review and recommendations. It would make it easier for the average Joe hiveians to vote on them.
Could I maybe suggest that the people presenting proposals that concern the community in a way that it directly affects topics of concern for the community, i.e. voting as one example, be presented and explained in ways for the voters can understand.
If a voter does not understand something, then that voter shouldn't vote on it.
That is another item, in fact the voter should ask questions about it, so that the person(s) submitting the proposal can answer appropriately.
No need for "committees", added administration and red tape are things that the real world can keep for itself, we can do this without all the headaches and obstacles.
Simple straight forwards responsibility and understanding along with direct participation from all parties involved should bring about a practice that is effective and constructive.
Hi Jack, thanks for the reply.
100% agree with that.
No need to look at it as "added administration and red tape". With the decentralization and freedom come added responsibility for each and every member of the Hive community. The Committee doesn't have to be very formal, wrapped in red tape. It could be an informal group of Hiveians who have the skillset and experience in a given area such as blockchain tech, marketing or cost-benefit evaluation. Whenever there is a proposal, they can come out and make a comment on the proposal to help other Hiveians to make an informed decision.
I must point out that delegation to a committee is already the status quo on Hive: consensus witnesses. It is a notorious feature of institutions that they inevitably increase their power, and we see this ubiquitously IRL governance globally today. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy is no hypothesis. It is proven fact.
Inevitably accompanying bureaucracy is corruption. The less of that the better, and no better example could be found than the infestation of vote bots that once deranged Steem.
I vehemently oppose formation of such a committee presently.
This is a very valid point to bring up, and be spoken of seriously within the governance community as well as the general community in my opinion. It is time that we look towards a brighter future and not a darker yesterday, hopefully everyone else feels the same. The pictures describe exactly what I believe is a GREAT direction for the consensus of the blockchain keeping it as much down the middle as possible. Being one sided to your proposal and those your favor over others and not be able to keep an open mind to others is not what we need going forward. It will be a adjustment for everyone and there are gonna be bumps in the road there always is but we will push through it. @jackmiller you have my vote as always because of the great points you bring forward and I plan to help you with anything you need to help have your view heard and discussed as well anyone else truly interested in expanding the Hive blockchain. Im doing my part and voting witness's dedicated to the growth and success of hive all around hope everyone else does to this man deserves it.
@veteranforcrypto Out..
Upvoted by @aagabriel for having similarities to the #informationwar tag, posts like this anyone can add the tag #informationwar so we can more easily find and upvote them! (by @aagabriel)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
Hive is growing as day go by. The family is climbing up