I appreciate this start to what I hope reins in what I have been forced to conclude was little more than strip mining the DHF by reigning stakeholders whose control of governance enables them to do so without even negligible oversight and yet less functional opposition to even the most deranged rally car spend.
Public explication of voting principles is utterly without merit, IMHO. Just like the perennial justification of DV's being that folks are free to vote their stake as they see fit, no mechanism exists to restrict or direct anyone's votes on DHF proposals. I can see how that might be useful as propaganda that could gain whales supporters if they can come up with the right back story, but it's without utility in deploying DHF funding to develop Hive, or hold Valueplan to account. It's PR, and nothing else.
"Management & accountability plan before funding
"Progress updates per milestone
"Public post-completion report"
What a bunch of amateur crap!
That isn't even GAAP (generally accepted accounting procedures), which is the bog standard of every commercial venture, and should be the starting point of any professional enterprise. There have been credible allegations of fraud, detailed mechanisms for kickbacks even on chain, and when confronted regarding providing receipts that could disprove frauds occurred both GP and LB flatly refused. LB practically had a stroke, screeching dire imprecations and ad hominems like getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar was contrary to the laws of physics. That's all on chain BTW.
Absent competent and thorough accounting, ya'll are all but begging law enforcement to crawl up Hive's ass with a microscope.
"Goal: professional, KPI driven transparency without bureaucracy."
Every mom and pop shop on the corner uses double entry bookkeeping. Every bank demands business plans using it before lending a dime. NO PROFESSIONAL commercial entity in the world doesn't use it. Until every DHF proposal is held to that Kindergarten standard, none will be beyond the standards of a lemonade stand run by little kids. A bookkeeper is not an expensive position. Valueplan is blowing $M's on losing rally races while funding half of Venezuela's economy, and a part time bookkeeper is less money than ONE RACE it's spending for. A couple bookkeepers could easily account for every spend the DHF makes, and produce professional reports that make fraud and kickbacks impossible - or at least require clever thieves.
As to spending the DHF, the mission for which it was dedicated was clear: develop and grow Hive, and not much of the $M's from the DHF has been spent on anything even approaching achieving that mission. It is the library of content on Hive and our creators that are our marketing department, and instead of providing incentive to market Hive to them, the ruling junta of stakeholders has conversely strongly suppressed the creation of a library of content here and continues to drive creators from the platform to cement whales' continuous possession of a bare majority of stake. That's how Sun Yuchen rules Steem at his sole option, and it's the same thing here, just by committee.
I continue to demand a commitment to using GAAP for any DHF proposal that gets my vote, and recommend everyone does the same: vote only the Return Proposal until and unless DHF proposals commit to and use simple double entry bookkeeping to ensure fraud, and kickbacks to voters for proposals, aren't the real reason behind worthless schemes that produce zero growth or benefit to the platform.
Growing Hive is simple: reward creators for content they accumulate on Hive to attract people that want to view content (FFS make that content searchable! Maybe even fund a token to make that content evergreen on the second layer so people promote it). Make each individual operation in Valueplan submit it's own proposal. Lumping them together is contrary to the purpose of the proposal system. Quit flagging and fulfill Hive's promise to be censorship resistant. Zeroing out rewards is censorship just as much as double tapping to the back of the head. That's why Canada froze the accounts of the Freedom Convoy, and why that ended the protest. Quit hoarding a majority of the stake to prevent actual community governance. Concentration of stake is how Sun Yuchen gained sole possession of Steem, or did you forget?
Spend the DHF on development (fix Hive.blog BTW. If we include any non-YouTube videos the whole post is blank on Hive.blog. Maybe ask Peakd how they got it to work?). Support programs like the Stewards of Gondor that was tested some years ago, where modest delegations - not even spending stake at all - were provided a few dozen organic curators that upvoted content they liked. A weasel or two were discovered circle jerking and upvoting their bots, and their delegations were withdrawn quickly and without loss of more than a couple soda pops' worth of upvotes. The vast majority of the Stewards did exactly what was intended, and had salutary effect on creators and content. Maybe defund HW and fund Stewards of Gondor with that money (although that would be >10x what was merely delegated to the Stewards). That will grow Hive. That prospect is why more than 1M users onboarded Steem - and then were driven off the platform when demonetized by HW's. The failure of that content library to accumulate and those creators to be rewarded is why there's only about 5k organic Hive users today. Fix that (before Blurt! surpasses us on Coinmarketcap).
Wanna get fancy and enable true community growth of Hive? Have a return proposal for each DHF ask. That way if someone wants $20 to feed a stray cat with the Hive logo growing on it's side, they don't need ~$50M in votes to get over the Return Proposal and make it happen. Also, diminish stake weight per successful proposal supported. Folks that don't vote for every stray cat proposal will conserve the weight of their votes for substantial proposals worthy of support, and folks that vote for every stray cat or rally car will burn off their votes and leave consideration of substantial proposals to serious people. Also, it's just fiscally responsible. There's only so much DHF, and Hive users should only vote their actual stake in that DHF, not be allowed to vote their stake repeatedly on proposals without consequence to their VP.
I'll just hold my breath awaiting such fiscal prudence and principled promotion of the fundamental proposition Hive offers the global social media market (which grew to become the largest sector in global financial markets in ten years - while Hive has lost market share every year). J/K. I'm not suicidal.
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.
I was recently told by an important hive figure that how content isn't needed and creator economy is causing hive harm. xD
(It can literally burn hive inflation if done right)
Thanks to ola, now we have a little bit better content discovery search engine but it's not as exactly as I wanted.... Anyways glad they made search based on content not tags.
What is ola?
The phat Hive wallets didn't come from creating content, but mostly from mining Steem early on, or from milking creators some other way, just like the real wealth from gold rushes didn't come from busting rocks but from selling shovels to miners, running brothels, or towns miners came into out of the cold when their sacks were phat.
Even so, without the mining, no one would have made anything. Social media is today the largest financial sector in global markets, exceeding manufacturing, mining (including petroleum), and defense. It is THE market to be in, and the FAGMANs (Fakebook, Apphell, Goolag, Microshaft, scAmazon, and Netfux) well prove that. However, all the FAGMANs are widely detested for their censorship and egregious data mining, both problems Hive can eliminate for it's users - as could have Steem. The avarice of the whales keeps them sucking ROI via extractive profiteering (none of them have blogs that meaningfully contribute to their stacks, and they are 99% of the downwards price pressure. They only profit when they sell) off the rewards pool, and because they maintain control of Hive governance by maintaining a bare majority of stake they will not risk that ROI for far greater capital gains they might attain by allowing Hive to grow, because that would risk their control of governance.
However, the lure of the $M's in the DHF has proved too strong for them to resist, and sucking it dry without getting caught committing fraud is more difficult if GAAP are implemented for all DHF expenditures - and that is why not one mention of standard double entry bookkeeping was even made at their round table.
They keep this shit up they're going to get caught, and that could well end Hive and the potential for it to implement the initial vision and potential for censorship resistance and a media platform owned by the creators that is not vulnerable to the corrupt influence of advertisers. All we'd have left then is Blurt!, and that has it's own whales and governance issues.
Proper search could greatly improve the utility of evergreen content in our back catalogs, and, as I pointed out, monetizing that content on a second layer is entirely doable, which would incentivize it's creators to promote it across the global market, and assist Hive in recapturing it's market position and outcompete lame FAGMAN platforms. The censorship has to end though.
@thebeedevs aka ola aka itsola. She was the first presenter in hivefest day 1.
Thanks!
That's exactly what's up.
I disagree with your stance on downvotes, and last time I checked Netflix wasn't social media, but... hey...
Our whales are too busy protecting their source of income; stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.
And oh how much I hate all the marketing people and how anyone could fall for their fluff talk.
Meanwhile, they now demand bills and checks and accounting from whom?
Developing software just takes time and work.
Every one of their friends (including their friends’ moms) had a go at it and now that it all is running dry, we get a round table.
Felixxx I must be honest, I get your frustration. But frustration won't get us further. Ofcourse you are free to vent this, right. Beyond this frustration (how i see it) would you have any constructive feedback or ways how you would see this improved or fixed?
Yes, I do and I very clearly articulate that in my blog posts. - have been for years.
What you could do, personally:
Start voting, bro! (for content)
I DMed you about this many years ago and you just ignored me.
I want to make this very clear:
Love what you are doing with Hivefest. If we spent 1mio HBD on the event itself, I wouldn't mind.
Also: You are no whale.
btw: Did you take part in the decision to name this thing Hive?
Why (out of all people) did you have to stick your head out for this? 😔
I can't be mad at you.
thanks for your comments. I have not been very active on Hive for a few years beyond maintenance of my servers, as I was fulltime overtime building a house. As I am slowly done with that I dabble with what is next in my life. Hive has given me much and I love to give back to hive.
I would not want to go to much into my personal behaviour or response of why I do or not do certain things. As it would take away too much about the core discussion at hand:
Where:
-- "we" is random Hive-people attending these events
-- "this stuff" is DHF spending, valueplan spending, attracting businesses, being more structured in a still decentralised way, accountability, criteria.
omg please don't!
It is a common danger to be a victim of groupthink in institutional settings. In order to prevent that it is necessary to include people you don't generally converse with, to seek out and specifically include dissidents, those you disagree with, and particularly those that do not share the viewpoint common to your bubble.
It is notable that in science, every major change has come from outsiders, dissidents, and those that gatekeepers sought to silence. A patent clerk from Germany that barely passed university maths disproved Newton's physics, that had stood for centuries. Perhaps if physicists had courted more dissidents cosmology would have improved centuries prior.
Hive isn't as fundamental as physics. Hive can't last for centuries with the execrable user retention it has now. It should be very obvious that whales do not have the same interests as new users, so the mechanisms and principles they will propose and support won't reflect onboards and their needs. If you want Hive to grow - and unless it grows it will die - I strongly recommend asking users that fled the platform what it would take to get them back. I think I know what you'd learn from asking them, but I'd prefer if ya'll asked 1000 of them and learned it from them.
Spot on.