Blocktrades' vote on the return proposals shook like the entire Hive ecosystem, not in a bad way, but in an unexpected ways of mixed reactions. It lasted for no more than twenty-four hours, though.
Many people began to consider what is and is not possible as a result of the impact. It is crazy to think that one person could pull such a heavy string on the Blockchain.
Hive is still one of the most decentralized pieces of tech in the web3 space, despite the fact that many people perceive it as a centralized move on a decentralized blockchain.
However it just shows you that intentional and fruitful longevity can buy you a choice that makes you reverred on a space as Hive.
Blocktrades: the gold standard
I remember when I was a newbie on the Blockchain, blocktrades was the gold standards. It gives you the impression that you are doing the right thing when he votes for your content.
Infact blocktrades votes endorses a creator's content to other potential curators. Back then, the system was different: voting on posts that might trend earned you more curation rewards.
When other curators noticed that you had received a blocktrade vote, they hit your post with 100%, which is how random content creators made the trending pages.
However, how many of these accounts that were consistently supported by blocktrades and the rest have maintained their influence?
Many of them are either completely powered down or nearly finished, with the exception of a few who have retained all of their value and are still raking it in on the Blockchain.
"Unfair" Doesn't Mean "Wrong"
The current argument is "But it is unfair to ask me to buy Hive and participate in governance; I can not compete with them; the system has to be fairer".
While it is true that not everyone can do this, there is the opportunity to grow your stake organically and participate in governance. If you support governance and want things to be fair, you simply have to do your part, whether artificially or organically.
My point is that it is completely incorrect to label Hive as "centralized" simply because you do not like how governance works. Is it true that sometimes these big boys votes craps and hands paper cheque to the people who are looting the chain?
Yes, they do that.
They allow lobbying and politics to influence them, and sometimes they make terrible decisions that are bad for the chain, but they have earned the right to do so because of their "stake."
They acquired this stake in unique ways, and the way the Blockchain is set up allows them to do so. These guys also have a lot to lose, even though we agree that they can do a better job of defining who gets to be a witness and revolutionizing the DHF.
Good things don't last
So Blocktrades has waved his magic wand, and everything else is back on track for funding, except the INLEO proposal? To be honest, I was slightly disappointed. I might be exaggerating, but I believe 70% of users are pleased that the DHF will be revolutionized.
Regardless, the move was bullish.
It meant that any proposal seeking funding would have to go through the ringer rather than simply DMing a few people and expecting approval.
One of the people I follow suggested that the move was intended to ensure that the INLEO proposal did not pass. In reality, I believe that every proposal merits scrutiny and revision.
The system requires a new change, and nearly everyone agrees. However, blocktrades has done what he feels is right. We can not tell him how to use his stake; we are probably just pencils in the hands of the creator. If the blocktrades moves were truly about the INLEO proposal, we may have celebrated in vain.
As for the DHF system.
I believe that instead of "ignore," a "downvote" should be used to indicate that you do not support a proposal. Another issue is anonymity. When there is anonymity, anyone can choose to support or downvote a proposal without it being obvious that they did so.
However, I understand that this contradicts what Hive represents. However, the current system allows politics to thrive. Unfortunately, 80% of DHF proposals lack accountability.
What is the old saying again? Too much of a good thing won't be good anymore
We thought blocktrades had finally sparked the revolution, but they did not. I guess we can not all rely on blocktrades, nor can we influence him with what we believe is right.
Interested in some more of my works
Is it Easy To Make Money?
Nigeria: A Unique Business Market & Industry
Virtual Bank Apps In Nigeria: An Experience Of Gamification
How To Find The Next "BIG" Meme Coin
Personal Finance: Achieving Intentional "Saving" Goals
Playing The Survival Game: Human Nature In Introspection
"Un-PAYING" The Debt You Owe
Interested in some more of my works
Is it Easy To Make Money?
Nigeria: A Unique Business Market & Industry
Virtual Bank Apps In Nigeria: An Experience Of Gamification
How To Find The Next "BIG" Meme Coin
Personal Finance: Achieving Intentional "Saving" Goals
Playing The Survival Game: Human Nature In Introspection
"Un-PAYING" The Debt You Owe
As a concept, anonymizing vote on DHF proposals could offer more freedom to everyone to do what they want with their vote without assuming it publicly (which is what we do on legislative/local/presidential elections). So, there could bring out more voters who would like to keep their option private. Maybe... I don't know if it would be better or not to have not publicly assumed votes.
The other aspect is the technical one. It's one thing to have one person one vote, another to have a stakeweighted vote, where anonymity could easily be broken by matching HP to votes. That, of course, if things wouldn't go deeper, and the actual vote stake isn't obfuscated, but that would lead to many controversies and maybe making it hard to verify if votes are accurate and calculated properly.
So yeah, I guess the first step would be the option to have voting for and against instead of only for plus a threshold. But there are many reforms that are needed at a more granular level, that gives more power to the voters on releasing payments at delivery or milestones (this would be one type of project, others can't be fit into this category of projects - for example paying for some infrastructure operational costs, or for the HBD stabilizer).
There are advantages to anonymous voting although I understand that it's probably more complicated than it seems and might bring other issues. Honestly I know that there are those who will take it upon themselves to find out where the HP is coming from. However I think the ultimate way to get people involved is to make them anonymous.
This is probably simpler. I have participated in governance before and most of the time people want to participate but not face public scrutiny.
If we cannot actualize this, I think then, the DHF needs a massive overhauling. If for nothing but for potential investors who wants to put their faith in what we have here..
The easy way to do it but by giving up your choice of governance vote is to set a proxy. Then your stake votes on governance (or not, depending on the proxy), you aren't directly exposed to public scrutiny, but you also have no say regarding what your proxy votes for or doesn't.
I think I have used a proxy, I can't remember for what. However, I usually just ignore a proposal if I don't feel like it's worth voting for, most of them actually aren't.
Yeah, unfortunately. It's bad that people don't feel excitement to support a good part of what's being funded by the DHF.
Greetings @josediccus ,
Thank you for writing about this topic of DHF proposals...well said!
I echo your sentiment....that we should be able to vote against a proposal...especially when it has been brought to the attention of Hive users that said proposal is not in the interest of Hive.
Kind Regards,
Bleujay
Thank you. Most of the time, people just ignore a proposal because they don't want it, but personally the downvote button ensure that people can be intentional about a certain proposal and vote against it.
Thanks for the support.
Completely agree with you, DHF are just a part of Hive and Hive has a high level of decentralization compared to much more famous platforms.
In my opinion the mechanism of DHF should be revised, often there is a DHF proposal but there is no monthly reporting and reporting at the end on the results achieved. This should be a requirement in my opinion, there needs to be a set of standard steps to follow so that those with an approved proposal need to update at regular intervals what they have done and what they will do and what results they have achieved.
!discovery 30
@tipu curate
I think a lot of people are interested in how well the DHF is run. Using it as a money grab is terrible and I guess that this happens because of the lack of accountability. Proposals don't even talk about how the money is spent and there's no one at the top who actually makes an attempt to get all these projects to be accountable.
Hive is decentralized, it's just sad that only a few accounts moves governance. Although they worked hard for the stake they have and that's something
Thanks for the Curation
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 3/43) Liquid rewards.
A down vote mechanism would be wonderful, and is sorely needed. It's silly that some of these proposals pass with just a vote of a few people, and those of us without as much HP have no say whatsoever. Great post!
!hiqvote
I think those with the stake are enjoying the privilege of skin in the game and they deserve that. PoS seems unfair, but basically the mechanism is for protection. I would really love a overhaul
I think there needs to be some changes to the proposal system, but I doubt much will change. I think being anonymous would be good, but that would also cause issues with the proxy voting system. People could figure out what someone is voting for by checking that proxy. So I guess it's a harder issue to know exactly what to change.
I understand that anonymous voting will be somewhat complex and even I feel it might be unrealizable but I think it's just one way to get people to be actively involved in governance or something like that..
Blocktrades' vote on the DHF proposal might have had what seems like a centralising effect on the blockchain but we cannot blame Blocktrades' for voting. Anyone who complains should work to increase his voting authority so they can have a say too. But honestly, one account controlling so much power on the blockchain seems kind of scary.
You've echoed most of what I said. Blocktrades didn't steal the stake they have. They were probably staking when others were selling and now they have the stake to dictate governance.
I think it is every human's right to try and improve his performance so that he can get more profit.
This post was shared and voted inside the discord by the curators team of discovery-it
Join our Community and follow our Curation Trail
Discovery-it is also a Witness, vote for us here
Delegate to us for passive income. Check our 80% fee-back Program
@thebighigg, the HiQ Smart Bot has recognized your request (3/3) and will start the voting trail.
In addition, @josediccus gets !PIZZA from @hiq.redaktion.
Discord. And don't forget to vote HiQs fucking Witness! 😻For further questions, check out https://hiq-hive.com or join our
Its too bad inleo didnt get the vote though, i see nothing wrong with the project as alot of users has benefit from inleo over the years,