when projects on Hive want to stonewall.
Having trouble 100% grasping what this means.
Why do you require random projects on Hive to cooperate with this vision?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
when projects on Hive want to stonewall.
Having trouble 100% grasping what this means.
Why do you require random projects on Hive to cooperate with this vision?
this mental right here.
is what i am talking about.
So I will continue to just build.
Honestly look in the mirror and think about why this statement is a large reason why Hive is not looked upon as a place to do business or invest.
The mentality of wondering why you have to ask for permission to build on permissionless stacks... is the problem? Would have been a lot easier to just answer the question with an example rather than saying I'm the problem. I'm not the problem, I assure you.
it is not the permissionless stacks and asking for permission.
it is asking the chain for technical help to onboard a project.
Say a project wants to come on and connect and needs help building a HAF server and an API endpoint for there in house systems.
Let's say a current project has that working and I go. "hey can I see that code and ask you some questions" and they go no. FK off.
they have the right to do that but it sure as hell doesn't look good.
Too many people around here are focused on themselves and not the chain. Which they have the right to do, but the world does not work that way.
Yeah I understand perfectly.
What I fail to understand is how forking the chain could possibly help.
This is not an on-chain problem.
It's an infrastructure and documentation problem.
let's use this an example.
Microsoft / wotc / nintendo / sony / 30 smaller studios want to use Hive but don't like the lack of support, but love the tech.
They can fork and set themselves up as the top witnesses.
or just spin up a new chain with themselves as the top witnesses and set up a dev team made up of people from each company to help with tech.
This makes them feel better.
If we had the tech and onboarding support. 10 smaller studios could onboard to hive and show the benefits and bring the larger one's onboard.
I am working on the latter but the first option is gaining a lot of traction. the IMX presentation is going to be interesting.
Fun week next week for sure.
Fascinating... good luck with that!
Sounds like it would be REALLY easy to port tech to and from sister chains created in this way.
I think so. interesting days ahead.
My point was I don't need anyone but doing the walled garden approach is failing.
This is why microsoft / wotc etc.. are more interested in a fork then buying up Hive.
Right... yes, I agree that pretty much all the business models that currently exist on Hive are quite incorrect and not within the spirit of open-source decentralization. This answers the question pretty well because I've run into this issue a couple times in my adventures.
I think this is the point i was trying to make.
I am trying to change the business model and onboard large outside capital and everyone is just like "here is the repo" "good luck"
when I have a ton of other things I am building.
Even when i say hey can you spare an hour to look at a few lines of code, the "large share-holders" go.... Nope.
I don't have time for that.
Really? You want the price to go and be a good investment option but you will not advise? or review a line of code?
That is fine, just disheartening.
It's like why build value for a chain with that viewpoint.
Not saying I can't do it, just would be faster with a bit more back and forth.
That is why I thought a DHF funded team would be amazing for onboarding.
Quite right.
Yeah I get it now it's just never not been like this so many are numb to the BS.
TBH this is why I have had better luck working with ADA and the game projects etc... on their chain.
big things coming this year that will bridge multiple chains. (and not just from a token/defi point of view0