I agree with @stuffbyspencer and @gaottantacinque.
If there's no war chest, then continue to depend on devs who volunteer their time or get third rate bullshiters who make retarded dapps designed to farm the reward pool.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Do you think the amount currently going into SPS is currently appropriate? Perhaps it could use a couple HBD more or less a day, or is it just right?
This proposal can be turned off and one depending on people's mood which I think os a key feature. It does need more discussion though.
https://www.daxx.com/blog/development-trends/it-salaries-software-developer-trends-2019
It is my personal opinion that if the DAO cannot support a dozen or so quality devs, the proposal system itself is a failure.
The median seem to be around 50k which is ~150$ a day (137 actually).
So 3000$ a day could get us 20 average devs working full time (they dont need to show up to an office).
Or 20 high quality devs working a few hours a day.
The fund is growing around 3000 a day (lets assume current proposals are always vital, some like servers are) so 25~33% can safely be burned now. Which would still mean 12~15 more devs can benefit from sps on top of currentnsps use.
Some corrections:
50 k is quite low in the US: “Software Developers earned an average salary of $108,080 in 2018. Comparable jobs earned the following average salary in 2018: IT Managers made $152,860, Computer Network Architects made $111,130, Computer Systems Analysts made $93,610, and Computer Programmers made $89,580”. And they only went up in the past couple years.
you don’t only need Devs. You also need testers (manual and automation), product analysts, business owners, project managers, marketing, legal, etc etc
cc: @enforcer48
Salaries in the US are a lot higher than global average, especially anywhere near silicon valley. I estimate the global average to be about 50k a year for programmers.
Although it would be nice to hire full develipment teams, the idea is to save cost. Full time legal team, marketing and artists doesn't really make sense. If the money is burned on development instead of null, the price will continually go down since 75 million steem is a lot.
It's possible to reach a happy medium of development, the extra beefy dao pool may make this possible, but it is also a looming risk legally and a warning to serious investors.
Steemit was legally registered in the US and developing from there may become difficult if legals are persued which is very possible. We may be wasting am awful lot of money on legal defense. It's easily framed as greyzone stuff. To nocoiners it could possibly be seen like theft or plunder. Who is to say development didn't end at smt and justin didn't legally by it? Did he suffer damages from the fork? His lawyers could harass us for years and years.
It will be interesting to find out what happens, it is definitely too early to be trickling it into the dao.
That should be the number we strive to keep it around then.
But of course, I would imagine @blocktrades has a better grasp about the size of dev teams, etc. working on projects.
I mean, different projects would have teams of variable sizes.
I like the idea of having proposals that burn around 400~500 each per day for now. As they pass the return more can be made. The whales can decide when to stop supporting more of them.
You're math implies that we have small dev teams. We want properly sized dev teams, and lots of them.
So, lets say average teams size of 4 ( ceo / marketing, frontend dev, backend dev, artist ). That means we can get ~5 "average" teams, or like... 2-3 "high-quality" teams?
That's not good for a new platform. I'd like to see dozens of teams working on multiple different projects that cross a variety of sectors. We want mass-adoption, we need mass-dapps.
Also, ignore the line of "high quality devs working a few hours a day", as that's not always possible. If you're working a full-time job you often don't have time to dwindle at a side-project, even if it's paid ( especially if you have a family ). Ideally we're aiming for people to be able to take full days off / leave their job entirely because the DAO is funding full time high-quality work.
I do see your point. The more the merrier. It's a real shame we didn't take even more when thinking of it that way.
Well, I mean we could only take what was available ;^P
I think the 80 million is good for long-term funding of projects, events, marketing, and contests. #LongLiveHive
It definitely helps us secure long term internalized funding. Hopefully, it is always used well.
Also, in those average salaries usually there’s more: health insurance, benefits, 401k, annual leave, sick days, etc etc.
And taxes for crypto are much higher than a “regular salary”.
cc: @enforcer48
Hey!!!
Account preservation dapp!
War chests often negatively impact those not in the army. Best to observe until the funds are spent, in this case it can take years. We are spending 25% of the money, it's piling up and not everyone agrees with most of the witnesses. Because some of the votes carried over, maybe proposing a reset is a great idea, at least with the return proposal.
Is anyone even being paid right now? It doesn't look like funds are flowing at the moment.
Edit: it is.
I'm just saying that the DAO should have funds to support a team of active devs at a competitive wage. Otherwise, why waste time hobby deving when you make more having a real job?
Exactly. We want less people relying so heavily on the reward pool to earn rev for their projects.
DAO is the best solution to that.
The Dao has over 400,000HBD and that number is growing daily. It could be a future liability for any investor. I'm arguing to to slow down the growth of the reserve fund not to eliminate it.
I'm trying to understand why Hive is expected to move slow when it should embrace the freedom from STINC gatekeepers and get a move on.
I think the inflation is overemphasized. Hive, as a social platform, should have lasting value, not a store of value.
That's just my opinion, anyhow.
If Hive is not a store of value, why is value being stored in the Dao?
Cause you need it to hire people to do things. Hence, it pays in HBD.
I feel that most of us are oversimplifying the budget, etc. needed to hire competent teams.
Let's not forget that Stellar decided to burn billions of tokens and it did nothing for their price, demand, and whatever. There was a temporary pump before sliding back to where they were...with less market cap.
I don't know. I don't have the expertise to make any further discussion.
Stellar didn't fork and sieze tokens in the same way Hive did. Maybe they would have fallen more if they didn't burn the tokens.
Not only is this not true, but there's also no reason that people can't be included "in the army".
A warchest doesn't only have to benefit developers. It could be used to host writing contests, onboarding initiatives, charity events, and much more.
On Hive, everyone is in the bee-army ;^)
Seriously? Dao funds are used for what people vote for, primarily development that benefits the entire community. Charity is not charity if it enforced, even via democracy.
The proposals don't benefit everyone, for example two are related to building wallets, why do we need all more Dao funded wallets?
Yes, correct. Hence why I suggest having a large war-chest for it, to help provide funding for lots of different types of proposals. If we had small funding, I would not vote for any writing contests, as I would instead prioritize development costs. If, however, the funding was large enough, I would vote for other types of proposals, because they do in fact add value to our platform.
Options are never a bad thing. Hive is literally less than a week old, so obviously you're going to get lots of projects popping up in the same space. That's what happens in a new environment. Competition will result in one of these wallets being the best, or at the very least, the wallets catering to different niches ( ie one for newbies & one for power-users ). The more projects that get funded will result in a stronger ecosystem.
I'm honestly not even sure how to respond to this. Charity can in fact be charity if voted on through democracy. I'm confused as to your idea of "enforcement" when in context of the DAO, perhaps try to elaborate on this better?
The Dao is over-funded, continuing to over fund it will lead to projects with decreasing marginal utility. I'm gonna draw up some graphs to show this. Prudent care of a smaller pool will lead to more efficient projects, we don't need to encourage vanity here. Why not add more funds, billions of Hive? At some point you should be able to admit this would be ridiculous.
Hive is not a week old, it is a clone of Steem and is 4 years old. People can use the wallet they like, throwing more projects at the wall and hoping some sticks is not a good use of funds, capitalism and the free market enable funds are spent wisely, risk and reward. Dao funds should be used for basic infrastructure, not fancier wallets.
Charity is meant to give funds to those in need. Using Dao funds for charity is okay for the people who vote on it, I doubt it will be approved. If you want to give, consider upvoting or sending funds from your wallet to the charity of your choice.