RE: Tell me something you like and dislike about hive
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
People need to check their DHF votes on a more regular basis, and remove them if the project isn't delivering. If something gets approved, it doesn't mean it is approved for the whole period, only until it no longer has support.
The problem is, I think people are lazy.
I would also like to see the DHF sponsor CONTENT. Like, If I want to do some photography, and hire a model, and post it exclusively to HIVE, be paid for my time, pay for the model's time, and generate some content for HIVE, that should be an option.
Development is great, but HIVE is a platform that should be about the content, not the content about the platform, which unfairly dominates the rewards. I made a really long comment on acid's post, I appreciate you stretched your feelings out into a post!
I don't think, in that regard, that laziness is the issue, as the DHF works with proof of stake. So 1 person can hold more HP than a thousand accounts. Thus, and this is the case that's currently happening, if a project receives 2-3 of that kind of votes, then boom, it will pass no matter how many people will unvote. Here lies another issue. If i hold a ton of HP and we are buddies or people that care about money, i can easily support you because you are either my friend or as you will give me some HBD, then it's a win win for them and a lose lose for us.
If there was something in terms of accountability though, like you didn't meet your goals and you were out over x percentage, then you would need to give back a certain amount as a fine or something.
Btw your idea wasn't bad at all! Thanks for stopping by!
Yes, entrenched accounts with a high value will always have a bigger influence, and sadly, this mirrors existing political systems in the "real" world too. While some people only have 1 vote, others have a big bag of money and with that, influence and lobbying.
All ideas should be assessed on their merits, by people who are able to assess those merits (like we have peer review in academia).
I would feel that the penalty for not getting the rest of the funds would be enough, otherwise malicious actors could approve projects, then essentially "garnish" things if they didn't meet whatever standards or justification they had to screw someone over.
I had another point to make, but in my sleep deprived state, it has fallen out of my head :D
haha i will be here in case it comes up again :P