First off, did you vote my proposal?
Just kidding, I don't have one.
You would have be living under a rock to not catch wind of the Splinterlands proposal. I'm not here to talk about the proposal specifically, but the events surrounding it.
I personally don't play Splinterlands, so I don't follow it too closely. I do however have a few Splinterlands assets so I do have an interest in the game. While I don't follow it, I do see it come up on Twitter quite often. A surprising amount in fact.
A few days ago, I came across this tweet.
The tweet from @aggroed is what caught my attention. In this tweet, @aggroed suggests pressuring people to unvote the return proposal. I personally vote the return proposal, and I would vote it harder if I could. I think it is important the return proposal be high enough to create a reasonable barrier to entry to funding from the DHF. In my opinion, it is still too low.
What is being asked here is to reduce the governance because a vote didn't go the way they wanted. I know this is fairly standard practice to go around begging for votes and asking people to remove their return proposal votes. Other large proposals have done the exact same thing, the larger the community the more pressure applied.
Another top 20 witness suggested whoever raised the proposal to remove their vote as the return is too high and it shouldn't be higher than 20M.
There is currently 441M Hive in circulation, of that, 177M is staked. 20M represents only 11% of the total available governance votes. The current return proposal sits at around 16% of the total available governance vote currently. I don't expect it to stay that way, I am sure it will be reduced in the near future.
I have no illusions this is going to stop or magically go away. This practice is unhealthy, hurts the Hive ecosystem, and is short sighted.
We are currently spending $1.6M/yr on active proposals, plus an additional $600K+ from the Value Plan proposals. This is significantly less than it was recently.
Just something to think about.
Why you should vote me as witness
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
I don't like the way the DHF runs at all.
People seem to be using the return proposal as a way to gauge whether a project is worth supporting, but literally nobody ever looks at whether any proposal is viable, if it ever achieves its goals, nor if the money is even spent as described, nor is there any discussion about the value to Hive and whether it helps support the chain.
In other words, it seems to be a closed shop controlled by 20 or so people. My understanding is that Hive was designed to bew a decentralised social media platform and was supposed to be a welcoming space.
We seem to be a long way from that and the whoel DHF thing needs a rethink. We need to do better.
SPL proposal has something like 800 votes backing it.
That's more than 20. And more people are welcome to participate.
that's true enough, thank you, but does that invalidate my point?
No, that one:
still stands, except it's not nobody, but it's not everybody either.
let's hope the mood improves 🙂
there is enough power in all the smaller accounts to get a proposal passed.
it is just easier to get the large accounts to help you.
If you want to spread out the power and get more things passed.
Don't support large witness voting trails or curation projects.
Work on building up the smaller communities etc...
I found it funny how so many people are mad about Splinterlands requesting funds from the DHF but so many have a blind eye to how this project https://peakd.com/@swc-oficial/wallet keeps getting funded with thousands of HBD monthly.
I brought this up the other day we had a big discussion in MM.
Yeah, I have seen other Hivers talk about it too yet.... funding keeps going to him.
one of the main reasons why I lost my love for the community sadly.
I think instead of a return proposal, there should be a 50% staked hive requirement / quorum, if less than 50% staked hive voted for a proposal, it shouldn't be funded. Yes, it would be extremely hard to get something funded but it would ensure that there is a majority for things that get funded.
The harder the better IMHO.
Funded proposals to date reveal many examples that poorly detail how the funds are to be used and what returns are expected. I am unaware of any that rise to the level of business plans that are required to attain to funding from IRL sources of financing. That's unfortunate, because the DHF disperses IRL money. Raising the bar on proposals receiving $M's is absolutely necessary to an entity intending to increase it's economic value. I think failing to specify financial accounting standards for submitting proposals is a fundamental reason the DHF funds proposals that do not provide nominal returns.
Thos. Jefferson pointed out that the success of the American republic depended on an informed electorate, and we observe the consequences of voting by the ignorant every day. While having such accounting standards doesn't dispel ignorance of voters, it does prevent funding proposals ignorant of financial accounting.
I wanted to say something like this, but I kept deleting it lol. But well said.
How would a better system works in your mind?
Its a bit insane that a handful of big stakeholders can swing a proposal to get funded or not x)
Seems like smaller users don't matter when it comes to proposals :D
It's mostly the human factor that's failing imo. Most people don't get involved or have any stake.
True. There will always be problems with humans involved :D
That's how democracy actually works. It has been shown that powerful stakeholders are who legislatures serve, while relatively stakeless civilians are ignored. Plutocracies, like Hive, only less obscure that reality with rhetoric by directly weighting votes with stake, while Democracies make pretense voting prevents stake from directly controlling governance.
Hive enables stake to exert that control on chain, while non-stake weighted voting would require that control to exert it's influence off chain. It is not possible to prevent off chain discussions of Hive governance AFAIK, and I believe on chain execution of governance is preferable because it is overt, while off chain execution of governance is covert, which massively encourages fraud.
True
Personally I am averse to 51% of voters spending the money of the 49% that voted no. Hive could account the DHF differently because those that vote to disburse funds from the DHF could spend only their share of it, while those that vote against proposals would maintain their share of the DHF, because we can calculate those values and treat those funds differently. We are not limited to the technologies available in the Enlightenment during which IRL democracies were founded. This would enable the profligate to spend their share of the Founder's Stake away without a care in the world, while the prudent could keep their share for substantive purposes.
@themarkymark may have the requisite skill to code such differentiation. I only know such calculation is mathematically potential.
I don't think the system will ever change to a pure majority only voting system. The reality is most people don't have much stake and most don't vote on top of that.
What I mean isn't majority rule, but if you vote for a proposal you vote to dispense your share of the DHF to it if it passes. If you don't support it, your share of the fund isn't dispersed if it passes, and is reserved for things you do vote for. 100% of the funds for any proposal are born by the supporters' portion of stake in the DHF, proportional to their staked Hive relative to the amount of staked Hive extant.
People only vote on dispersal of DHF stake proportional to the weight of their stake overall - and they spend that stake in the DHF down each time they vote a proposal that is funded, until they don't have any weight left in the DHF.
Follow me mathematically?
If I understand you correctly, it sounds like proposals would pass but with only partial funding?
In my opinion, the barrier needs to be high enough to cut off all funding unless a specific threshold is reached.
If the supporters of the proposal have enough stake to pay it, it would be paid. If they don't, it would only get what they could send it. So, in the latter case, yeah, it would only get partial funding, because it's supporters could only disburse partial funding. Folks that didn't vote for it wouldn't be providing it funds from their 'stake' in the DHF.
I thought I was voting the return proposal, but when I checked I wasn't. I am now.
I think a lot of folks don't vote or pay attention to proposals because they aren't interested in them, or they don't think they matter. Were they to be solely responsible for disbursing a portion of the DHF proportional to their stake, perhaps they'd feel like they mattered, at least that much.
I don't like democracy. I don't like other people being able to tell me how to spend my money, or my stake in the DHF, and that's what pure majority rule would do. The return proposal limits that potential, as you've said you feel is necessary. I agree such a hurdle is necessary, but even if it's surmounted I don't want folks spending my stake for things I don't vote for. I'd like to see the change in the DHF proposal system I outline for that reason, and I think prudent folks that didn't spend away the DHF would end up being the only folks able to vote on proposals, because the portion of it they control would be all that's left to fund proposals with, sooner or later.
Valuplan taking 10k HBD/day suggests that will be sooner, rather than later.
So if I put up a proposal "Make Marky Rich" and no one but me votes it, I would get paid whatever my 3M HP would count for?
I maintain the ninjamine should've stayed on Steem.
Hive development should be coming from witness rewards. Now we have two competing, heavily overlapping structures; where witness votes are impacted by proposal votes and vice versa.
sounds for me all like communism.
Socialise loss, private wins.
I mean i hold some shit in that game, but if the market decides the game is shit, it is shit.
It is what it is.
This Post. What Marky said. All exactly what needs to be said and said very, very well.
Your comment though, that's awesome!
I agree, and do the same.
Thanks!
That’s an abysmal small amount of “stake turnout” for the current system.
View or trade
BEER.Hey @enforcer48, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!We love your support by voting @detlev.witness on HIVE .
Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
View or trade
BEER.Hey @enforcer48, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @isnochys for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below
Very important points about the return proposal vote compared to total stake, but also to keep in mind the level of governance involvement which is incredibly low. Most people don't understand nor care about the governance on Hive (or on Splinterlands), which is really bad for decentralization and Web 3. Proxies are only pseudo-solutions, because they lead to centralization and representation, in some instances with votes going against the desire of the stakeholders having set proxies.
Your insights on the Splinterlands proposal and the surrounding events are thought-provoking. It's interesting to see how governance and community influence play out in these scenarios. The pressure to unvote or change votes is indeed a complex issue, as it reflects the larger dynamics of power and decision-making within the Hive ecosystem. Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter. 👍
It is less but it also accounts for 2% of the entire hive market cap which is kind of crazy. The other point I would argue is Hive is just becoming more and more centralized by large players. Now sure they worked, invested etc to have that large stake but it is causing issues I believe in terms of centralizing hive much like we had the issue with steem.
The other issue is of that 177 Million hive staked only 57.1 million is on the highest voted proposal so where is that other 100 million hive?
There are two glaring issues.
Not everyone votes on proposals. Perhaps something should be in play where you have to vote on at least on proposal even if it's the return proposal in order to earn staking reward. Or/and vote on at least one witness.
Blocktrades houses 23 million of the voted hive from what I can tell. So unless blocktrades is voting on your proposal I don't think it's going to ever pass at the moment because there's simply not enough people voting.
Point 1 should help solve the inaction and unkown of new people to hive or even old about what proposals are, witnesses etc. There seems to be a huge lack of people that even know it exist.
If anything I think Splinterlands once again brought more attention to the DHF voting then has happen in the last two years!
Some proposals have passed without @blocktrades vote, in fact a few have. With his vote is almost guaranteed.
More people have to stake and or participate if you want to change that.
I wish I could vote up the return proposal more. I buy as much Hive as I can, but I'm afraid that doesn't count for much. We should add some mechanic where all accounts are voting on the return proposal by default. If they want to get involved and unvote it, that is fine, but by default their accounts vote for it.
There is the separate issue that there is no accountability at all. You get approved, you go on a spending spree for hookers and blow and no one is the wiser.
But but is anything in life actually legit or are we all playing someone else's game of profit?
Everything is corrupt to some extent.