- Good suggestion to add in GAAP. Adding to my template options. (soon!)
- Spending DHF on development is done in some ways afaik: See Hivedev and others getting funded for working on Hive? However as was tossed at the table conversation: full payment off all developers working on Hive would instantly deplete the whole DHF (!!!)
- Don't understand the Return proposal on each task. (how this would work software wise) Imho exactly for smaller projects who have difficulty outreaching and receiving attention from 50m stake an intermediary was founded called Valueplan.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I appreciate your considered reply. I realize that not all development projects are possible to fund. This is the purpose of the DHF proposal system, to enable the Hive community of stakeholders to select from among them which to fund.
Regarding #3, simply accompany each DHF funding proposal with a return proposal specific to it. This enables those that support the proposal to vote for it, and those that oppose the proposal to vote against it. Only, as the blanket return proposal works now, when the votes for a proposal exceed the stake voting it's return proposal, does the proposal succeed and gain funding from the DHF.
I would further like to see that the stake disbursed to successful proposals reduces the weight of the stake of those that voted for it in future DHF proposals, as I (probably poorly) explained towards the end of my rant. Valueplan has poorly performed supporting smaller proposals, and is considered by the majority of voters in a recent poll I have seen to be supporting the rally car contrary to popular disapproval. It is precisely to prevent such institutions as Valueplan arbitrarily spending the DHF that the proposal system was created.
Valueplan is the only funded proposal I am aware of that has credible claims of fraud and kickbacks to voters for funding Valueplan alleged, and these claims were made on chain so are presently able to be seen today. Further I have personally pointed out these claims of fraud to Valueplan principals and strongly suggested they provide receipts to disprove that fraud occurred, and was met with disingenuous BS instead of proof, and a flat refusal to provide such receipts then, or ever.
Valueplan is exemplary of what needs to stop being done with DHF funds. Such arbitrary disbursements of funds all but beg for fraud. I have vehemently and publicly stated these things before on Valueplan proposals, and I have attracted copious comment both from others demanding accountability, and those insisting on unaccountable expenditure of DHF funds. It is difficult for me to understand how you could have failed to note these comments, or my prior insistence on GAAP. While I am of little import, my comments have generated fervent discussion on Valueplan funding proposals, and a variety of blogs besides my own, that would be difficult to ignore.
Frankly, I am amazed that GAAP hasn't always been required for DHF funding. I am unaware of any other grant source that would seriously consider proposals that neglected it. Double entry bookkeeping is millennia old, and is standard business practice for very sound, well known, and long established reasons, and every business I have ever worked for has used it. It is inexcusable that it hasn't been part of every DHF proposal heretofore, and shocking that there aren't more claims of fraud and kickbacks arising from the resultant complete lack of accountability.
I hope that all DHF proposals even considered for DHF funding from now on are required to account for their expenditures of the funds received from the Hive DHF using GAAP.
So you would say: upvote + downvote proposals basically? could be something in there.
Yes. The blanket proposal is too high a barrier for modest asks, and has proved insufficient to prevent Valueplan from becoming a hemorrhage of Hive most users would not support. Perhaps if it had it's own return proposal rather than the blanket proposal #0, the return proposal system would function better.
Also, when we vote for content, our VP dissipates. New content always arises (so far) so our VP recharges. The same should happen with voting for proposals, except there is only one DHF and our VP should dissipate by how much funding the DHF disburses on successful proposals we vote for. It should only recharge by the amount the DHF recharges.