Should it be limited? The main thing is it throws out any decentralized option of the DHF when a single vote from one person/company can pass a proposal. Essentially if they wanted to they could create a DHF proposal themselves and vote for themselves and collect 100,000 HBD daily if they really wanted to there's nothing stopping them as far as I know? Seems like a major issue in terms of the so called decentralized aspect of Hive.
I agree that the present form and boundaries to the DHF funding proposals, and the impact of stake on that process can better. I have proposed [Edit: not as a DHF proposal, but merely, as here, in comment on chain.] that the DHF being a commons should be reflected in how it is spent, as each of us with stake have a proportionate stake in the DHF that is not reflected in how it is spent.
I have suggested that upon our accession to stake our stake in the DHF be calculated, and our votes for proposals that attain funding then draw down our stake in the DHF. This would leave that power to vote away our stake in the DHF in our exclusive hands, and not subject to tyranny of the majority. Eventually profligate spenders would spend away their say in how the DHF is spent, presumably frivolously, and frugal conservators of their capital would be left to approve proposals that met their more exacting standards.
Were such a rebirth of the DHF to be created, none could complain that BT, or any whale, was blowing the DHF on development such master developers reckon appropriate, because their portion of the DHF would remain to them, untouched by the spending of them that voted for it. This would also limit proposals to the portion of DHF voters for it had a right to spend. Further, no Return proposal, nor the individual DV's many have proposed apply to each DHF proposal, would be necessary, as folks can spend their stake as they see fit, and do not need our approval to do so.
In the real world we can only spend our money once, and IMO the DHF should reflect this reality and let stake holders only spend their stake in the DHF once.
Should it be limited? The main thing is it throws out any decentralized option of the DHF when a single vote from one person/company can pass a proposal. Essentially if they wanted to they could create a DHF proposal themselves and vote for themselves and collect 100,000 HBD daily if they really wanted to there's nothing stopping them as far as I know? Seems like a major issue in terms of the so called decentralized aspect of Hive.
No. Like most "fixes" it is easily circumvented with multiple accounts.
This is less a problem with @blocktrades stake and the lack of it on others.
You just said the keyword, decentralized. Others need to step up and help it be so.
Good stuff, I appreciate the time on the thoughts on the matter.
I agree that the present form and boundaries to the DHF funding proposals, and the impact of stake on that process can better. I have proposed [Edit: not as a DHF proposal, but merely, as here, in comment on chain.] that the DHF being a commons should be reflected in how it is spent, as each of us with stake have a proportionate stake in the DHF that is not reflected in how it is spent.
I have suggested that upon our accession to stake our stake in the DHF be calculated, and our votes for proposals that attain funding then draw down our stake in the DHF. This would leave that power to vote away our stake in the DHF in our exclusive hands, and not subject to tyranny of the majority. Eventually profligate spenders would spend away their say in how the DHF is spent, presumably frivolously, and frugal conservators of their capital would be left to approve proposals that met their more exacting standards.
Were such a rebirth of the DHF to be created, none could complain that BT, or any whale, was blowing the DHF on development such master developers reckon appropriate, because their portion of the DHF would remain to them, untouched by the spending of them that voted for it. This would also limit proposals to the portion of DHF voters for it had a right to spend. Further, no Return proposal, nor the individual DV's many have proposed apply to each DHF proposal, would be necessary, as folks can spend their stake as they see fit, and do not need our approval to do so.
In the real world we can only spend our money once, and IMO the DHF should reflect this reality and let stake holders only spend their stake in the DHF once.