partly. it is topped up by 10% of the newly minted hive. But it is not in the hands of one centralized, regulatable company. community votes on what happens to the funds, so its decnetrlaised and is not being used as an exit by a central company, and it is not using new hive users as exit liquidity.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
the issue with both networks then becomes the issue with democracy itself. the system will only be so good as the lowest common denominator of the people voting. it is directly related to the awareness and consciousness level of those voting.
money can buy influence, both on hive and on icp, therefore it really doesn't matter much whether centralization is due to a pre-mine or due to collusion of influential whales down the line - autonomous community governance must be the goal somehow. i see an age where things stop being for sale all the time. which, your profile picture reminds me of also. good old Jacque.
The two are very different. No one got money for free on hive. On ICP they did. Morally I don’t agree with it and it’s very similar to hive anyway. I’m not aware of whales colluding to dominate governance. Most ppl with large stakes on hive generally don’t like each other.
Also I do t see how hive is being governed in such a way by stake holders who are removing ppls digital rights to post or build community or access the platform. So no I do t agree at all that ICP has the same set up as hive in the sense ur describing above
guess time will tell how this develops. i am not so sure it is such a clear cut case but i value your feedback
thanks