Public Funds
The DHF and forking the Steemit ninja mine into it created a nice reserve of funds to provide incentive for further development of the hive ecosystem. With those being public funds, their use must be carefully scrutinized by the community to ensure that an equivalent dollar value is being returned. The DHF should absolutely not be viewed as an entitlement for previous contributions, as an award based upon popularity, or the spoils of winning a war against Justin Sun. As community members, we are all stewards of this fund, and must act as its comptrollers, to ensure it is being used both efficiently, and judiciously.
Decentralized Hive Fund
So we have a mechanism through which the community can agree to provide funding to various efforts, such as development, marketing, infrastructure costs, etc. You simply vote a proposal above the return proposal threshold, and voila, the HBD will start flowing when the proposal kicks off.
From there it starts to get murky. In computing we call it a black box. We can see HBD flowing out of the proposal system, and into wallets, but as a community we have little visibility into both the activities being funded on a more granular level, as well as the outputs being created.
Communication Of Value
We need criteria for continued funding of proposals. My suggestion is a tiered approach for the aggregated total of any active proposals for a particular funds recipient.
- Under 50 HBD
- No update necessary if it is clear what the funds are being used for. For example, infrastructure costs. Otherwise monthly updates.
- 50-149 HBD
- Provide bi-weekly official updates
- 150-249 HBD
- Provide weekly official updates
- 250+ HBD
- Maintain a public work log and provide basic updates daily within that log. Provide weekly official updates.
Failure To Comply
Not only do we need to have clear reporting requirements, we also need the consequences of failure to report to be clearly defined.
Any failure to submit an official report, should immediately have funding removed until a report is generated. For top tier funded proposals, failure to create a minimum of 4 daily log entries per week should result in removal of funding.
Official Reports
Providing official reports presents the opportunity for the funded proposal to communicate its continued value to the community. If a proposal is unable to articulate its value-add, it should not be funded.
Official reports should communicate goals, milestones, and high-level progress. It should also communicate detailed metrics.
As much info should be provided as possible so that the community can make informed decisions regarding what to support.
Daily Logs
Top tier funded proposals should keep a daily log of their activities. One means of accomplishing this could be a Hive post which is edited every day. It should be used to provide voters a basic understanding of what was accomplished that day, and provide a basic idea of how many hours were spent on tasks.
Of course this entire post are my suggestions of how we can create visibility, accountability, while at the same time encouraging progress on Hive. Better solutions may exist. My hope is at the very least, this post or others like it can be used as a framework for discussion regarding how the community intends to manage its resources going forward.
Your feedback in the comments is of course appreciated.
We need a way to "police" what has been done and what the value of that work is.
Justine popped in out of nowhere, said: "ive worked for 700 hours", has 0 qualifications and slapped a 40$ per hour wage on her work asking for 30 000 Dollars.
Lets pump the brakes here.
We need these people to be accountable to someone. Their work needs to be vetted. Netouso has 2 proposals going for almost 200 000 USD a year.
One is "continual development" and another is a "specific project continual development".
THOSE TWO THINGS OVERLAP!
We talk about reward pool abuse and 5 dollars someone makes from a spam post and we look the other way with this kind of crap?
Really?
I think once we can agree on a standard as a community, we can dig into those weeds. We can't hold proposals to a standard, if that standard does not exist.
I am entitled to 500 million dollars USD because I sent a tweet promoting hive. How do I get my entitlement? Can you tell me where I can get more information please. Or is there a specific person I need to give a blowjob to on discord?
Typical fucking pussy's. They never reply to a REAL comment. Gotta keep stroking those cocks of the big boys on here and ignore real people, while complaining that things are shit at the same time. Then go write a virtue signalling post, about the very same thing that you all ignore. Doesn't get more hilarious than that.
Funneling the ninjamine into the development fund has extremely bad optics.
We need to destroy the ninjamine no matter what.
If we need more money for development, we can always just print more inflation.
With this dynamic in mind, there is 0% reason to not destroy the ninjamine.
It will only serve to make this network look like "thieves".
Destroying it and printing more inflation is effectively the same thing, but the optics are better and people are dumb.
As far as the core message of this post is concerned:
A+
We must have a way to hold people accountable if we are funding them.
I'd rather not figure this out the hard way.
Thanks! When I mentioned nice, I meant nice and juicy, as if we need standards to protect it. That being said, I have no issue destroying it, though that seems unlikely at this point.
When at first, I saw the proposal features on steem moving to hive, I have actually knew that later in the future it might have some controversies which is now turning up.
Communities should not just vote blinding on proposal not worth the amount backing it up.
Apart from only voting and the type of proposal content and benefit to the community,the funding should also be assessed and checked out
They are growing pains, but good problems to solve.
You nailed it! So far, most of the proposals seem very vague. But like I read earlier, unless you're a whale, your voice/opinion really doesn't matter.
It only takes 14 of the top whales here to pass a proposal. If back door deals were to go on, there wouldn't be anything any average content creator would be able to do about it.
This is new, it's been the wild west. Now that the community that values decentralization has moved away from Steemit safely, we can focus more on governance.
Very well compiled. It makes sense, it's a lot clearer to me now how DHF works, and I hope the funds to be used properly and not based on affinities and friendship votes. The communication of value part totally makes sense and as I commented on other similar posts, it's obvious to have some sort of proof of work since you're being paid for a task. Are you a witness by the way?
Thanks for your response. I'm not a witness. :-)
Under 50 HBD is what I'll give a lot of proposal. I feel hive is early and well we might still get the the range of 250+ HBD, I might be wrong but this is what I think
I think micromanagement can lead to very undesirable results. We have to be clear about the type of work we'd like to see. To my mind, we want to see work that considers the long-term benefit of the community and ecosystem. This type of work usually requires a lot of thinking and rethinking. It also often requires doing things that don't yield immediate results or that most people wouldn't necessarily understand, like setting up foundations.
With that said, I have made some suggestions myself here. And lots more suggestions and discussion are needed so I'm really glad to see you and others creating this discussion. I think it's exactly what we need, and a lot more of. Not pointing fingers but creating standards, guidelines and systems that work as intended.
Thanks for your input. Having done my share of billable hourly IT work, documentation of activity is not beyond the realm of common expectation. I don't think it needs to be excessive, but enough to instill more confidence. Bearing in mind that the entire process does not make any distinction between business days, and non business days, I don't think carving out some time to update your customers is too much to ask.
Certainly, dedicating some time for updates is needed. I am not suggesting that we drop the updates. I am however suggesting that we be more flexible with their frequency. Some types of projects may call for daily updates, while others may call for weekly or bi-weekly. Monthly may be appropriate for others. It's not dependent on the amount of funding asked but on the type of project.
Ultimately, I think the community wants project creators to treat the community as the boss that they report to. This is not necessarily happening currently since there is communication of some major stakeholders happening behind closed doors, which potentially (I am not sure about it since I am not privy to those conversations) gives them advantage over other proposal creators. Through the types of communication we are having now, I think the community is making its voice be heard, and making it known that it wants proposal creators to be transparent and accountable to the community. Exactly how that accountability happens can be flexible.
Your proposal seems to be reasonable to me. In an office environment there are supervisors that can see if an individual is working. In this decentralized world we are all the supervisors for the proposals, and as such we do need to be kept aware of on going progress and to ensure the funds are being used for the purpose requested.
I've read a few proposals and they've not been thorough enough to warrant the requested fund. As much as I wouldn't want to discourage the continuous development of the platform, I think any fund given to people must be earned by convincing the community. The irony of it all is that the ONE proposal from Justine that I don't agree with because I feel it is exhorbitant, is probably among the few that elaborates and is eloquent enough in the post.
I voted every proposal under 50 and unvoted every proposal over 50. Okay, some of those under 50 ones are vague and probably not really important, but they either won't get funded anyway or are worth the value without too much thought.
I'll reconsider the ones over 50 based on your standards and a sample of what they plan to include in their report. Also, I think if the proposal is funded rewards for the report post should go dao or null.
I'm extremely skeptical of having 63 million Hive in the dao account. At this point, I think burning it all is appropriate since we have seen a lot of dodgy proposals get funded and not burning it will just be confirmation it can continue.
It's a real shame that some of the people who have been so closely involved with Hive are now paying to reward themselves. You know who else decided that community dao funds were their own private property? Hint they owned and or founded the previous chain. Founder's rights are really scary and a few people gleefully used this excuse without noticing the dangers and irony.
Transparency and accountability are always good. “Policing” not so much. This is a DPOS system and the DHF is stake based.
There absolutely should be an effort to communicate and show the work done. In open source development that’s easy as there are applications like github that can easily document some work.. but not how many hours someone spent to code that commit. How would one show that?
Individuals who understand development would understand the work that goes into some aspects of it, then others like the little pink man here, knows nothing but tweeting and doesn’t even understand that a blockchain core developer is extremely hard to come by and charges quite a lot.
So a daily log to tell every hour spent seems a bit odd as that’s not required in any other aspect of the industry. The end result is the work done. Who cares if it took one developer 20hrs to get there if a better one could do it in 10? Is the end result the same? Did the community benefit the same?
So I think these details are something the community needs to consider. It’s ok to not understand many aspects of development, but it’s then a bit strange to pretend they do and state what they feel is an acceptable payment.
Perhaps along with these “guidelines” Some research should be done into going rates for the specific work done, and not just compare it to some wage that has nothing to do with the work being done. That way the community has something to base it off of.
For closed source work on individual projects that’s even more complicated as the project could leave at any time. Perhaps a look at how best to handle those aspects would be good as well.
More focus on the type of work and how it benefits the ecosystem and less factors on the amount.
As far as non development work that’s even more complex as there is no github commits, or code to show for it.
In many aspects, like with exchange negotiations, you couldn’t even make a daily log to detail all aspects as this would cause a riff in the relationship with the exchange and could result in either delisting or exchanges being less willing to work work with the project. Many actually ask you to sign individual NDA’s to even talk to them. So how to we document every aspect of that and “show work” without causing issues that would be negative to the community?
These are things we need to figure out going forward, for both dev and non dev aspects and I think it’s a good discussion to have. I do think it’s important to get relevant facts about it though before the community starts policing or proclaiming what is correct and what is not.
Hopefully we can continue to move forward and figure this all out in a decentralized method. As we are discovering though, organizing in decentralized way is not easy.
Thanks for your input. I don't presume to have all the answers, but I agree these discussions will be more important going forward. It is also worth mentioning if proposals were tied to more concrete milestones and deliverables, the tracking of time would be less crucial.
What an awesome mooning GIF :)
Thank @thepeakstudio!
If I was making 50 HBD, I'd be thrilled to spend 10-15 minutes updating a work log to raise the confidence of everyone. Even if it took 30 minutes, it'd be a way to consistently display my value and earn more in the future on other proposals. It's also a great way to distinguish yourself from someone who doesn't want to do that. Also, those who don't want to... red flag.
Agreed. In the past I have been been expected to keep a Master Station Log (MSL) for various projects, which you basically update as the day progresses to document your activities. It's not a huge ask, and it doesn't need to go into a tremendous amount of detail.
Hola amigo muy interesante la información proporcionada. Me parece muy bien lo invito para que ande acerque a mi blog
Congratulations @joshman! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board and compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
@joshman
Greetings!
Why reinvent the wheel, here is a method that has been successfully used by "twelve million registered freelancers and five million registered clients.Three million jobs are posted annually, worth a total of US$1 billion, making it the largest freelancer marketplace in the world." Source
I strongly encourage everyone to review this page:
https://www.upwork.com/i/trust-safety-mission/Text here
I would love to see THAT implemented directly on-chain!
No need to reinvent the wheel, just decentralize the wheel and let code be law!
🕉️☀️♥️🙏
Thanks for dropping in, I will take a look.