During HiveFest 10 in Kuala Lumpur, a group of long-time Hive witnesses, developers, and DHF stakeholders gathered for a round-table discussion on how to make the Value Plan and Hive DAO spending process more efficient and explore ways to limit the outflows from DHF projects as well as encourage vastly improved KPI reporting and expectations from projects that are funded from the DHF.
The discussion focused on DHF stakeholders publishing clear criteria with which they will vote on proposals, focusing on improving reporting standards, and encouraging witnesses and stakeholders to share and collaborate on their own funding principles publicly — all to make the system more predictable, fair, decentralized and provide a practical way to better control outflows from the DHF by increasing reporting expectation, and implementing more stringent requirements on what is funded.
Another area of focus was on creating a more stringent criteria for funding for Value Plan so that spends above a certain threshold have more stringent voting rights, and an understanding that a general cap to individual Value plan spending will be introduced. Above a certain spending limit a 2 out of 3 or a 3 out of 3 voting mechanism was suggested where the 3 voting candidates are rotated after a period of time. It was also suggested that any spends above the Value plan spending limit should be submitted as separate proposals in the DHF.
With these changes, it should be considered that Hive move to a period of relative austerity. The implementations should be monitored to verify that the chain’s new token issuance into the economy reflects this state and adjustments made if outflows from the DHF remain high relative to the size of the economy.
While Hive has programmatically reducing inflation for the rewards pool, the DHF issues HBD into the economy with more social nuance in order to create more reliable, stable payments to funded projects and so is not programmatically reducing over time like the rewards pool. This means that the community itself should carry out its own due diligence to make sure that the release of DHF funds into the economy are inline with the size of the Hive economy. The intent is that the actions documented here create the tools and changes of culture required to make this happen.
NOTE: These minutes are meant as an initial guide and to sort discussion, input and participation from the community. Please feel free to comment below and add, debate rational for criteria and variables discussed here in
Who Joined the Discussion
Attendees:
@Gandalf • @Sorin.Cristescu • @Vaultec • @LordButterfly • @CrimsonClad • @Blocktrades • @Detlev • @Arcange • @Stoodkev • @RoelandP • @Starkerz • @Engrave • @Clayboyn
Key Topics & Outcomes
1. Publishing Witness & Stakeholder Voting Criteria
One of the strongest action points was a call for large stakeholders and top witnesses to publish their individual DAO-voting criteria for project proposals to meet.
By making their principles public — why they support or reject certain proposals — they help the community understand the rationale behind votes and reduce assumptions about “back-room consensus.” They also vastly increase the threshold of expectation which projects must meet in order to obtain DHF funding.
An example of a Stakeholder's DHF voting criteria might be that they publicly state that if Hive is below a certain market cap (80 Million USD for example), then they will ONLY support DHF proposals below a total spend of X thousand USD per quarter, that report strict quarterly KPI targets which are included in the proposal such as number of users onboarded or number of active users.
Another example may include a minimum total Return on Investment or a that stakeholders will refrain from voting proposals for a minimum time period after a proposal has been be submitted.
This transparency will:
- Set very clear, regular reporting and KPI expectations for all projects seeking funding
- Provide a soft social consensus criteria for limiting DHF outflows
- Allow Hiveans to regularly communicate the progress and achievements of projects wider crypto and investment community
- Encourage more predictable funding expectations for proposers.
- Allow healthy debate and accountability on governance philosophies for funding by community members for both projects and voting stakeholders.
- Allow for stakeholders to collaborate and improve on what they expect from proposals.
- Build additional trust and accountability between voters, proposers, and the broader community.
TODO: Share a voting criteria template (@roelandp proposed to set one up)
2. Clear Criteria for ValuePlan Tiers
- Participants agreed that ValuePlan budget releases should be managed by a committee of 3 members with either a 2 out of 3 or a 3 out of 3 (TBC) vote being required to release funding for certain tiers.
- Participants agreed that ValuePlan tiers and spending buckets, each having explicit, published guidelines and clear scopes of work outside of which funding strictly cannot be issued.
- Spending buckets would ensure that funds could roll over to proceeding periods instead of consumption of entire budget each quarter and issuance of new budget request as is presently occurring.
- Smaller grants can be managed by single approval from one of the members (suggested was less than 5k USD)
- Budgets between 5K and 20K should be handled by 3 reviewers (each of whom serve a X year term before rotating out with a new reviewer which is elected by the community
- Larger tiers (> 20K USD) require their own individual proposals to be submitted to the DHF.
- Keyholders don't and should not act as final decision makers
- ValuePlan governance must remain distributed and community sentiment must be monitored so that ValuePlan spending reflects the will of the community.
- A rotation system for reviewers prevents bias and stagnation.
- ValuePlan reviewers need to clearly communicate how and why each spend happens.
- It should be noted that there are expenditures due within ValuePlan and so any down scaling of expenditures should take this into account and happen over a period of weeks/months so as not to result in unpaid obligations in ongoing budgetting.
TODO:
- Set 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3 reviewer voting mechanism / rotation of committee.
- suggested bucketing categories
3. New Reporting Standards & Accountability for All DHF funded projects
Consensus formed around a lightweight but consistent (ideally quarterly) reporting standard for all funded projects:
- Management & accountability plan before funding
- Progress updates per milestone
- Public post-completion report
Goal: professional, KPI driven transparency without bureaucracy.
Action Points
- Witnesses & large stakeholders to publish their own, more specific DAO-voting frameworks for transparency and improvement of reporting and execution standards for projects seeking funding.
- @RoelandP to draft a Stakeholder Voting & Project Reporting Criteria Template.
- Change the Value plan to a tiered approval process with a 2 out of 3 or a 3 out of 3 approval process for budgets above 5K USD
- Cap individual Value Plan project budgets to a maximum of 20K USD
- Appoint 3 people to become the reviewers and approvers of Value Plan budgets
- Introduce annual rotation of ValuePlan reviewers.
- Encourage participation in #hivedevs for project follow-up of technical implementations.
- Monitor in six weeks to verify if the above steps have improved the quality of, reporting of and assignment of spending via the DHF
- Re-visit in six weeks to assess whether the DHF is significantly contributing to inflation or if it is starting to move towards being a net deflationary factor on the eco-system – decide if further actions should be taken to address inflation.
Closing Thoughts
The KL Roundtable showed that Hive’s governance is maturing. By combining clear spending criteria, public voting principles, and light-weight accountability, Hive’s DHF can evolve to a more transparently coordinated, KPI and results driven model with regular reporting standards which can more easily be used by the community to further market Hive’s achievements.
Resolving this issue is one of the top 3 issues I see for Hive's growth, recovery and sustainability.
Some points in response to this post:
Re - Deciding on who gets to be in a position of power in the ValuePlan/DHF (on rotation): Deciding what to fund and what not to fund - for the good of Hive - is not a simple process. Every person has their own experience and understanding of business, technology, psychology, markets, marketing, reporting, science, maths and on and on. It seems like being in a position where an individual can hand out $5k at will is quite a desirable one for many people. How is voting going to take place for this? Stake weighted voting using a new system that doesn't yet exist? Why would the people put so much time into demonstrating capacity for this role, winning an election and putting time into fulfilling the role if they themselves are not compensated? Are they being compensated? Wouldn't a lack of compensation risk increasing the chances of fraud by these people?
Having stakeholders stating their criteria for voting is perhaps a good idea - but how will applicants locate these? There are thousands of stakeholders - how will people know who to examine to find out the key info? Wouldn't this practically require a new website/page just for this info and for applicants to potentially have to reference a large number of accounts? I think this is only practical of there is a way to aggregate the stakeholders' positions for quick reference. e.g. Applicants can see that '30% of the HP support I need for my DHF application can be achieved via stakeholders who say they will vote for proposals that meet my own one's configuration'. This would really require a tool to allow applicants to input the scope of their project and to check in advance. This might also put off applicants if they don't understand that not every stakeholder has provided their voting criteria and that a % of potential DHF voting power cannot be determined in this way.
Most people are not very experienced in measuring KPIs and in many cases they are hard to validate externally. We currently lack consistent engagement measurement systems for onboarded accounts, for example. I have made suggestions to @mcfarhat to include something like this in future updates made by the core team, but for now we got nothing! Standardisation is necessary, which requires a degree of experience in digital marketing that I have never seen any prominent people in Hive demonstrate they possess.
I would expect design and implementation of what is needed here to take maybe 6 weeks and to not really be able to measure anything meaningful from it for a while after that.
This is a big subject and comments could extend over 100 pages, but I'll stop here.
Not a bad idea at all. This could be done in a super simple way, by having a dedicated post and people put comments under it - one criterion/consideration per comment. Stakeholders then vote on the criteria they identify with.
There are pros and cons to all possible designs, I think given the large amounts of money involved, it makes sense to invest at least something into developing a solution that is more specialised to the needs of the situation.
One of the big problems with DHF votes is that the proposer has zero idea whether anyone has even seen their post. They are then left wanting to promote it and risk triggering overly sensitive token holders by daring to try to communicate with them. lol
I think the best possible version I can imagine is one where the UI for proposals includes filters for common parameters (much more than we have currently) and stakeholders voluntarily submit their settings to a shared location to allow aggregation and for proposers to see the current state of the 'dhf market'. That way the system would also know which stakeholders to try to nudge towards voting through notifications etc.
I suspect such ideas are pure fantasy, given the history of the fund - but these are just some off the top of my head :)
Here's my suggestions for addressing the concerns that I heard at the meeting:
Stop spending with zero oversight.
This one should be quite simple, but if it isn't, what I mean explicitly is this: There should never be blank checks handed out for any project without verification and validation of the work done. Value Plan should be on a multisig wallet and you should need multiple signers to approve any expenditure. There should be receipts or clear documentation of expenses and results. If these things can't be provided, money shouldn't be either. This ties into the next point...
Hire or designate management.
As someone that is currently contracted and employed by a DAO, I may be able to give better insight into this point than most, but pretty much anyone that's managed a business (at least successfully) would be able to confirm the necessity of management. The decentralized nature of HIVE is great and works well, but when it comes to centralized things like Value Plan, it 100% needs some sort of management beyond a volunteer level. If you have 7 figures to hand out to anyone asking with no oversight, and then go over budget every quarter and need more money, clearly there's an issue with budgeting and management of the funds.
You could spend 100k a year on a high performing manager to reign things in, which would easily save you more than that cost from the bridge proposals every time you go over budget, or preferably hire a team of people with specific goals and skillsets, such as project management, marketing and bookkeeping skills. A team would be more viable with a project the size of HIVE and you have a global userbase that could compete/bid for positions. This really requires some level of oversight and management though.
Start earning via protocol owned liquidity.
The cost of hiring people could be offset with properly managed protocol owned liquidity. The SPS DAO recently wrapped HIVE onto 3 chains. You could create LPs on the chains with low fees (0.3%) and high liquidity to allow whales to bypass centralized exchanges. Pay the chain, not the centralized exchanges. Alternatively VSC is supposed to have new pools coming soon too for HBD and pairs. HIVE could have HBD:HIVE pairs with millions of dollars of liquidity there as well. Do both. Do more. Fees generated could cover any management expenses you have while providing jobs and reigning in inflation.
Lower HBD interest rate.
15% for holding a token is not sustainable imo. You're going to run into problems where liquidity pools (which actually add and create value) can't compete with the 15% free money for doing nothing. I've also had several people tell me they won't touch HBD because they think 15% is scammy.
This concludes my Ted Talk.
About time! This is a good step forward. We need to track every project, see who is responsible, and understand what each one brings to the chain. All smaller projects should compete with each other instead of taking things for granted. Consistent discussion about projects will keep the community active and engaged—but we also need to act quickly once decisions are made. Hopefully, this will bring positive change, because we’re not in a position to keep spending money left, right, and centre.
By the way, how are we running elections for those 3 people? I hope it wasn’t decided at round table, because that would immediately create another problem. Hopefully, there’s a proper solution for this. Are we going to have elections for it?
👆
i fully agree with hoping this decision has not already been made at round table.
suggested ways would be to use the voting systems already in place. One can run a proposal for it?
Id disagree with this. It should be 3 reviewers for everything. Even if its 500 dollars. Much simpler to implement and manage. Many proposals are split into smaller amounts and you could technically split even the large VP payments into smaller chunks. So you can probably see how that could create problems. In theory you could split all funding into sub 5000 HBD payments and completely avoid needing the majority 3/3 approval.
From 0-20k should be 3 people signing off.
This also could create issues if its 2/3. Should be 3/3.
For the rest of the stuff here... I mean you know my position already. I still think people will vote on the DHF what they want to vote. Its basically about dealing with them on a individual basis. Decentralization comes with voters voting how they want to vote. Different values, different ideas of what Hive is. Whatever it might be.
But I am happy with the VP changes. Simple, easy to do, can lead to wanted results.
End Valueplan completely. Let each spend gain support for a proposal. That will better control the fraud that only Valueplan of all the proposals that Hive has funded so far suffers credible allegations of.
All that approval boards crap is simply more vectors for fraud unaccountable to the Hive community, beyond their ability to control by voting for or against with their stake. You are not the Hive community, and Vibes should stand on it's own (frankly, I bet it would), as should every ask Valueplan unaccountably disburses DHF funds on. Three person Soviets to approve or disapprove spends isn't what Hive is about. Hive is about voting our stake ourselves.
What if 3/3 approval still exists but funds don't go to an account these 3 people control, instead there is an escrow and the 3 people all sign to release payments after they have vetted things? Makes the whole process more transparent, no?
I wasn't able to make it this year, but I'll give some brief thoughts. Having clear spending criteria is a good start. However, if something can be attacked, we should look at the best preventive measures possible. I would look into adding a daily cap, something reasonable, that can be adjusted like the APR by the witnesses. Having a cap, ensures there can't be an attack on the DAO where a bad actor tries to drain the DAO. If we had "x" amount as a max possibility a day, something we can all agree on that is reasonable, meaning if it hit that amount, we wouldn't be in bad shape, it seems like a good goal to strive for. This puts at ease any overspending concerns, and ensures the projects that people want funded the most are funded, while adding health competition. Happy to flesh this idea out more, as I know there are nuances to discuss.
We have all the tools code wise already (at base layer), output from DAO is limited (daily), and as a an additional safeguard there's my Proposal #0 (The Return Proposal), that can limit spending for some of the projects, instead of all.
It takes time (weeks/months) for the larger collective of stakeholders to act on changing circumstances by upvoting/downvoting the return proposal. So seems like the attack vector is there. And sometimes the attack comes from ourselves, haha, as we of course want to fund more and more things.
I will read this again methodically, but my initial impression is that this is a responsible move in the right direction.
There has been some growing perception that some sizeable portion of DHF funding, no matter how well intentioned is itself diluting and decreasing the value of Hive, through excessive outflows.
Almost every Hiver likely supports spending for development and funding meaningful projects, but that funding must be proportionate to the value of Hive, and not at a rate of funding that is unsustainable.
It's great to see that there was a round table about these hot topics during the HiveFest! I hope it will become a regular thing for the future events, too... While I do appreciate the recap, it would be even better if these roundtables were recorded and published, just to keep the transparency image of our chain alive... 🙂
With the recent crypto dump that showed how things can change rapidly, it's crucial to "resize" our spending depending on our ecosystem size... We don't want the LUNA scenario happening on HIVE...
Sharing this in the next @Ourpick compilation for bigger exposure...
I have picked this post on behalf of the @OurPick project! Check out our Reading Suggestions Posts!
Please consider voting for our Liotes HIVE Witness. Thank you!
yes good point. this was very impromptu decided a couple of hours before. And a next one could be online, but this one should have also be online.
re comment 2: I think this is why quarterly funding at most was requested.
Reading trough the comments, obviously there is a big disatisfaction in the community the way DHF has been managed. Hope we dont stay blind to this, especialy the main stakeholders ....
My personal comment is great that there is a serious discussion about this, but the overall steps proposed just seem to complicated, a lot of IF statements etc... things needs to change fast and efficient, maybe put a pause on all DHF funding untill new procedure in place.
After 9y this comes a bit late.
But better than nothing.
DHF isn't 9 years old...
Steps in the right direction for sure.
GAAP for the win.
DHF spending must end the disappear black hole proposal funding. Proposals need to demonstrate follow through reporting.
We so desperately need new names associated with VP
It is essential to reestablish trust in VP and a vote full of fresh faces would be a good start.
My short list of nominations of people that in my experience have shown to be trustworthy and who always seem to have the best for hive in heart and mind.
@steevc
@louis88
@livinguktaiwan
@meno
@mynewlife
@thekittygirl
@shadowspub
There are more for sure
@ura-soul certainly seems qualified
(I went digging for a quote that captures the right mindset for someone best suited to a role like this on Hive.)
“Those fit to rule are the ones least eager to rule.” — Paraphrase of Plato
A shake up of DHF and VP is the most refreshing news I’ve heard in a while on Hive.
I’d like to see other users short lists.
Lets get this ball rolling.
Uhm... erm... wait! ...then according to Plato... Aren't people like: @valued-customer, @amaterasusolar, @sunlit7, @mondoshawan, @blanchy, @antisocialist and me, persons trustworthy and qualified enough as to also have been nominated and included in your list?
LOL
I'd vote for a couple of them myself, and often do, precisely because of their integrity. Some of them, like me, are probably too whacko for such responsibilities. But - you didn't nominate yourself. You have certainly demonstrated robust endurance in the face of adversity, which is a rare and valuable trait.
Oh yeah, I actually did!! See that 'me' word in bold at the end after mentioning @antisocialist?
Yup, that's true. I'm afraid Plato probably wasn't thinking specifically about the good whackos as "fit to rule chaps" when he made that quote.
Thank you! But as you already know, I have a very high & strong reputation as a whacko that I still have to protect and preserve.
Volunteer yourselves, not others. There's enough work to go around for everyone. There is a learning curve to get into the Value Plan workflow and understand all of the controls and processes, since any decision should be made based on knowledge.
As Plato wrote in Laches: "Because, I presume, an issue should be decided based upon knowledge rather than numbers, if it is to be decided alright" (184e).
I'm not going to volunteer, but I'm so glad someone finally noticed the stupid things you do, supporting projects with no future. I guess all of this has you a bit overwhelmed (or 'obfuscated'), along with old age. Take a cane once and for all and go home.
I know, its hard to get around if one of those tennis balls pop off my cane.
Well, at least I did. I volunteered, just as it appears on my list of nominees.
I have no doubt that there must be enough work. Especially if it involves doing things right and properly. And by the way, talking about work and knowledge. When the hell are you going to kill the useless, annoying, worthless and despicable work/service of @spaminator? Are you gonna do it yourself or are you gonna wait for me to do it?
Message me any time you want if you want to talk about Spaminator.
Yes, i agree with many of the names you have put forward. And im sure there are many more.
I'm actually very curious to hear other peoples short lists of trusted and competent hiveans that could be a part of a committee to reevaluate VP and DHF standards.
Though after reading through the comments here...just scrapping value plan completely would probs be the least complicated and most appreciated for and by the community.
Of course. I knew you'd agree. :)
Oh! a lot more indeed. But sadly, many of those I would have also nominated and included on my list, they have already begun interacting with the system only once per Lent and are posting and commenting less and less.
Yeah, I'm very curious too. In fact, I thought it was/is a brilliant idea that we should all somehow encourage everyone to draw up their own short lists of nominees.
"Nunca vayas a dudarlo Pepe Trueno!" «Quick Draw McGraw»
Yeah, nah.
Is this a joke?
btw who wrote this? A Nigerian LLM?
I remember what they did to @steemchiller:
When he asked for funds after the fact, he was made fun of and his software was basically stolen.
The whales decide anyways.
Does anyone here remember Charlie Shrem?
He was the OG fund pirate - before there even was a DHF.
Yet, we still have ppl outright stealing funds and nobody cares.
we started the meeting with acknowledging we are all in Hive for the long term, just like you are still here in the platform. We started the meeting because we all care for Hive. During past meetups over the summer at several (mainly) EU events (from my side at least) we have been discussing this between one-on-one conversations. The idea to do this meeting is as we were still all one-on-one touching on this subject during HiveFest week, idea arose to meet with 12 or so of us, to share the voices between a larger group. So I do think many care.
LoL, as for the readability and comprehension of this post, I was thinking the same thing, but I could never have described it better than you.
I feel a bit bad now, since roeland himself revealed in another comment that he wrote it...
It felt smart at the time 😅
Oh! Don't worry. Because no matter how much you adore Roeland, that still doesn't stop him from having used a Nigerian LLM to write this post.
FYI - this was co-written by my nigerian llm from my meeting minutes and co-authored mainly together with @starkerz after which it made rounds through all participants in a living document.
Uhm, much I already knew that @starkerz had to have his hands put in this thingy just because of the "refined and cryptic" way this post was written and drafted.
hmm, refined. I love getting criticism from a Venezuelan and a German about my writing skills, as a Nigerian LLM and proud Englishman I find the pair of you fucking hilarious
@uwelang @felixxx @stayoutoftherz @alexvan
Thx for the tag - I was asking since ages for that you might remember - so glad that at least it seems some discussion is starting with big guys, curious for implementation if it happens, pretty late but at least people seem to think about stuff.
Thanks for the @.
To talk about this, after all the millions wasted for trash, is nothing but a bad joke.
well, in a decentralized setting, where there can be no coercion and no violence, the only way to get consensus is to talk ...
I'm dissatisfied with the outcome of the discussion. Who is behind this account?
$20K is an arbitrary number and is still a very high threshold. Valueplan should be dissolved IMO as it is acting as the de-facto foundation that it claims to not exist. This poll was just one of the items that were veto'ed and I'm sure we will see similar results on future polls.
Also the DHF funding should gradually transition away from network issuance to being externally funded. This way there will be a clear source of accountability.
However, at the end of the day if the network fails due to this, the whales who voted for the proposals are the ones who will lose the most financially.
I setup the account to publish the results which were discussed. After summarizing the above outcomes, these were shared amongst the participants of the discussion.
About the meeting: General consensus is that people want the best for Hive and move forward. Other ideas coined were to make DHF self sustainable by having it make money and act more as a (low risk) VC fund of some sort. DHF itself imho is built on top of the Hive network, transitioning it would imho be only done as follow: bury DHF (have return proposal as most voted in / top proposal) and setup a Hive VC Fund solely for investing in Hive projects.
Re: arbitrary numbers: yes numbers are. And are up for discussion. But at least it is a hard limiting factor. Are you suggesting other numbers.
You say you are not happy with the outcome: what would you have loved to have seen as results?
The DHF may run as it is without inflows from network issuance. One thing I would change the system is the ability to vote against individual proposals which will do away with the less flexible return proposal that is expiring in 4 years and will cost $3,730 HBD to recreate today. Creating a VC fund (if it isn't just a VSC contract akin to Protocol Guild) means establishing a legal entity that has its own cost overhead to operate and is also a foundation which is bad idea.
Dissolution of valueplan would make these arbitrary numbers irrelevant anyway.
interesting reference: Bitshares Worker Proposals:
key takes:
https://bitshares.org/stakeholder-approved-funding/
However:
Since 10th September 2020, with the 5.0 core release Bitshares blockchain doesn’t fund work by its reserve pool anymore. This was due to the network being depleted as a result of plutocracy and state-corporate crime between holders and businesses on top of the blockchain.
That sounds dangerous. And too familiar.
All grant programs good for researching:
https://gap.karmahq.xyz/funding-map
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c8koZCI-GLnD8MG-eFcXPOBCNu1v8-aXIfwAAvc7AMc/edit?gid=0#gid=0
It was a great day having such a wonderful roundtable discussion
It's a great first step. Thank you for taking it. Hive needs to reduce expenses and increase revenue.
Congratulations @hiveforum! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 300 upvotes.
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
STOPGood
Finally. Great news with this. I know some people might not be happy but I’m delighted that there is a plan in place to manage this. It’s a good start. Well done .
It was about time they stopped this madness. It's a big step that many are celebrating.
The above fails to take one key fact into consideration: VP is not a budget where people present projects and get bulk sums of money. That's the DHF itself. VP is a budget where Hive community members are asked to join a promotional activity. The element to deliberate is what promotional activities we will undertake in 2026.
I'm against the idea that others have to put in work in order to present quick executive summaries for whomever to vote on. Everyone here is a stakeholder and thus owner of Hive and everyone is responsible for the work of promoting Hive. Neither myself nor any project manager is going to sit there constantly reporting to some small group who are supposedly more righteous than the rest. This isn't Steemit.
A portion of the people replying and being mentioned here put in the hours already and never asked for anything. And a portion of the people replying and being mentioned here asked to be paid. Hive promotion and organization is not a paid job. What it is is a lot of work. Everyone who wants to participate in Hive promotions and in Value Plan in general has always been welcome to. You want to work for the betterment of all of Hive, which you co-own? Come work.