Someone asked for more opinions from large stakeholders, so I'll briefly add my opinion. All the tokenomics you've discussed were already discussed and coding plans were made as early as Hivefest, as I recall. Even we discussed briefly in discord. My opinions basically match that of ABW (and apparently smooth as well).
If anything, Hive needs to be spending more right now, not less, but spending more requires more ideas and programmers capable of implementing them. And as ABW has already pointed out, until at least SPL proposal, I've personally been spending more than entire DHF expenditures on devs. And of course at some point, DHF will have to take over those costs, as I won't fund it forever on my own.
But the root cause of our disagreement is your argument that reducing DHF will help Hive price. I completely disagree with this thesis. Of course, on each side it is just a guess, so there is no way to definitively prove it except to stop spending on DHF (which IMO would be a complete disaster).
Note I don't always agree on every proposal (as you can see I don't vote for them all, especially ones that ask too much without clear enough benefit), but nonetheless despite that I think the overall result of DHF spending will be beneficial to Hive in the long term. Spend or die is the proper way to look at it, IMO. As far as I can tell, the biggest stakeholders in Hive agree with this idea to some degree. This is also the method by which I was ultimately successful in business, I should add.
Tnx for engaging. Looking forward for the next HF!
I think you still vote most of them proposals. People still have most of theirs doubts with your votes. Whole problem that people prefer to burn DHF funds than spend them on projects might be weird voting on your side. Do you have post explaining your votes? You don't ever make mistakes? Any case that you voted but realized they just trick you? You vote proposals that have something like 100 votes total and your vote is 90% of power, proposal passed, no one really vote it, just you, and it continues year by year. Don't you see how it becomes too easy for some projects to get your vote and they don't even try to get votes from their own users? For some projects we can doubt they have users.
Maybe whole problem with lack of activity in governance voting is connected with this centralization of voting power, where projects don't need votes from users, care less about users, whole thing becomes mostly imagination between small group of people pretending that they do something.
Over spending, low work efficiency, situation when it's better to not finish work but continue it over years to extract more money from government, are very basic issues with governance. There is 99% chance it exist here. We shouldn't deny it, but improve our awareness about it. Possible you completely ignore these problems, and people at the ends prefer to burn DHF money cause they can see all the waste while you don't.
Generally I would prefer to not burn DHF money, but distribute it better way. Maybe we should create some metrics and track some data, cause sometimes I think projects intentionally avoid statistics cause it looks very bad. Would prefer discussion about these proposals, maybe you shouldn't be so consistent with voting on some projects, but let them prove their value, let them ask users for vote.
That comes from someone who made some applications on this blockchain. One of them distributed something like 200k HIVE to users(2 years), and saved much more. I made a proposal for that one, very cheap, something like 25k$ per year, compared to 200k$ generated for users, very cheap. You didn't vote it. You probably don't know about it at all. I abandoned project half way cause didn't want to drop another 25k$ from my own money to fund it. How you recognize good project or bad? How you inform community about your decision? Cause I have very clear statistics, metrics about my project and you can compare it to projects you vote, only if you want to.
Whole thing becomes political struggle between conservative approach to spent less and progressive approach to spend more, and possible problem is created by huge centralized power that doesn't try to reach between these options, but always pick one(currently overspending). I talked few times before that eventually @blocktrades flips to other side, and we fund nothing. But reaching middle ground here will be very exceptional, hard to imagine, requires much more work, thinking etc. Probably most beneficial for network, but who cares at this point.
For me it is more how it is being spent and what we are getting in return, there is a vast difference.
At that point you're arguing individual proposals. Obviously there is disagreement on the merits of different proposals. As I stated, I don't agree with all of them myself, and of course many disagree with ones I'm voting for as well.
No doubt you and I disagree on the merits of many of them. But probably the bigger disagreement between us is the impact of such spending. Generally i don't think that "most" of the proposals I disagree with are causing much actual damage to price, for example, even if they aren't the best expenditures to makes. There's only one I can think of that's large enough it may have real impact.
It's not the spending it's the sell pressure, most of which with no real benefit to Hive or gaining users/investors. Just as I have no illusion that burn posts actually does anything for price, but the reduced sell pressure may.
Spending/sell pressure, two ways to look at same thing. Again, I disagree with the thesis that sell pressure from DHF is affecting price much, especially not when viewed against the positives to price (a chain with active development).
Anything specific you have in mind in that regards, @blocktrades?
Lol, leech