Unfortunately for me, investing in Hive creates a lot of signals. I did not expect that. I personally do not like owning this much Hive. I am not attracted to power and do not like having power.
If the expectation was she would get paid, then she should get paid.
If the expectation was she would get paid, then I believe this proposal should pass.
Working for free is not a thing in my opinion. People always want something eventually.
If this proposal passes, I strongly recommend never paying anyone for back pay ever again.
People should be paid for their work. If you do not pay people for their work stuff like this happens.
I should be able to sell my Hive without people freaking out.
I believe Hive has a lot of potential still and I stand by that. I also have opportunity costs just like everyone else. Maybe I found something else I want to buy? That should be ok.
I am not vindictive. I am not interested in nuking the platform because I get downvoted, because I lose money, because I invested in something that did not work out, or if I simply did not get what I wanted.
I lose money all the time. I make more than I lose. That should be the goal when investing, making more than you lose (adjusted for inflation of course).
I agree with almost everything you say here, except that people don't work for free. I do work for free all the time. I don't care if I don't get paid for double digging a garden for a little old lady with a broken ankle. I do it for the little old lady. But, in this case, Hive is not a little old lady and Crimmy has provided professional services that should have been paid upfront. She's right when she says this is mostly her fault for not handling this before now. However, the quality of her representation and work that could be very difficult at times, as well as delivering solutions to problems that required she put up her own money to make them possible for Hive, is underpaid even at this ask.
While I work for free all the time, that does not mean I have not earned pay. I work for goodwill, and little old ladies with arthritic knees deliver plenty of goodwill for me. Hive is an institution and cannot have goodwill, but only the members of the institution can have goodwill.
That's my only disagreement with you here. Crimmy's work isn't a 'bad debt'. It's damn near a miracle for Hive, because, frankly, Hive doesn't deserve her acumen, competence, or diligence and perseverance. Crim is an asset fortune 500 companies desperately seek and too often can't find. Further, she has stated this is to enable her to continue her work on Hive's behalf, which is worth the price of her ask for even a couple months, much less two years, and if she says she will, she will.
I feel strongly she should be doing what it takes to formalize compensating her work going forward, because that avoids the missperception some folks have that there is anything about her ask that isn't fully deserved and far more valuable to Hive than the ask. The missperception is the result of that compensation not being determined up front, and that creates ill will that should be avoided in the future.
Mistakes were made, this proposal seeks to fix them, but Crim should not make this mistake again, and should state - no matter how hard it is to value - the compensation that she should be paid for this work from here on out.
I did not mean bad debt in a sense that it is literally bad. I just mean it sounds like we should have paid her a long time ago.
I absolutely agree.
I'm glad we found consensus. It's always a nice feeling if consensus is found in good faith.
I too believe she should get paid.
Even "if" I don't agree with this particular proposal, I think she should get paid.
"If" is in quotes because I'm conflicted and keep changing my mind about this particular proposal which is a first for me.
That being said, this proposal has the votes to pass so I'm going to give less thought to it and start focusing on other things.