Currently, the threshold for the return proposal is set at roughly 60m HP (pretty much double the usual level). There are roughly 180m HIVE powered up, which means at least 33% of all HP needs to vote on a DHF proposal to pass it.
The only DHF proposal currently funded is the one from Ecency. It's likely others will be pushed over the line... But not the one that triggered this reaction, again. I hope this is a tactics to negotiate from a stronger position, otherwise, this doesn't look good at all.
It isn't even 33%. There are inactive stakeholders on HIVE (including big ones), and those who don't vote on DHF proposals on principle, like the biggest HIVE stakeholder, @freedom. If we only remove his stake from the equation (13.7m HP), we jump to over 36% of ALL staked HIVE needed to vote on a proposal to pass it.
If it makes any difference, SPS DAO has a threshold of 10% (less than 1/3 of what the DHF has now) of ALL staked SPS voting both for and against a SPS DAO proposal to pass it (besides the condition to have 66% in favor, which isn't always easy to reach without a lot of behind the scenes politics).
It is interesting that the model without downvotes on proposals was chosen at the beginning, firstly because Blocktrades knew it from a different project and it was easier to adapt it to the legacy chain, and secondly because it was thought that downvotes will lead to internal fights. Well, it doesn't seem like the DHF is so popular on Hive, except among people getting funding, which aren't many, and now, are practically almost none.
It took the votes of a few major whales to fund a proposal when the funding barrier was in the mid-30s millions of HP. Let's see how it goes now with a 60m threshold...
In my opinion, the system is broken. It leads to more and more centralization (major whales having ALL the power on the DHF), and less transparency. You can't know the reason why someone voting on the return proposal votes on it (I used to do it, but at these levels, forget about it!), but it would be clearer if one had to downvote a proposal if they were against it. And you wouldn't have to stop funding on ALL proposals (VSC, Hive Keychain, and the like), because you have something against one particular proposal. Just downvote that proposal to the ground and assume that vote, if that's what you want and if what you think is the best. So... this is one of many changes that should be made to the DHF...
Otherwise, why are we on Hive? Censorship resistance, decentralization... Words, if they don't have substance.
Sorry, I got a bit carried away, and it has nothing to do with my support of the said proposal. At least, I hope so.
In fact, I do believe they should also find a way to drive some value directly to HIVE from the existing and potential future partnerships, on an ongoing basis. Otherwise, we risk that the market dictates a one-way flow of capital/value, and it might not be the way we want it.
Posted Using INLEO
I can't see this as anything but good. Almost all the proposals were absolute shit moneygrabs. Yes, some were good, but even the good ones had zero oversight. No expense reports, no audits, no anything except "trust me, bro". That is not a way to run a business or anything except corruptions, which is exactly what the DHF had before—a massive corrupt structure. It was all backroom deals. "Vote on our proposal and unvote the return proposal and we'll make sure you're taken care of for your loyalty"
Until we figure out a solution to this massive corruption and lack of oversight, I hope @blocktrades keeps his vote right where it is. As it is now, it is going to take much more of Hive uniting to vote a proposal to pass, and that's exactly what it should be.
Well, no, we still need oversight. Proposals still need to justify the money they ask for AND give us weekly reports showing us exactly what every single HBD is used for. But until we get that, I say keep it out of the hands of everyone.
we need a proposal to hire someone to oversee the proposals....
Lol!
funny but not untrue might put a proposal in to basically manage accountability of any proposal money so there can be set actions and outcomes and full accountability and transparency lol
Accountability can be managed via HP-weighted polls run at the end of a cycle/milestone when the worker presents results. The worker doesn't receive funds a priori, they get unlocked from an escrow account which receives proposal funds or they are sent back to the DHF based on the results of the poll. There can be partial payments.
All good ideas
Well... ok. I can go on with that.
I had a couple of proposals to improve the DHF which involved no funds (or partial funding) being released based on results shared at milestones or the end of the project. But that supposes some overhaul of the DHF system or an innovative way of creating proposals in this current system (which involve using HP-based polls on reports, and funding going to escrow instead of directly to the party doing the work, and being released based on polls results).
Your comment is upvoted by @topcomment
Info - Support - Discord
Which one triggered this reaction?
I think it is a net positive for Hive to have all these DHF proposals being nuked. Last year HP holders were diluted for >$6M from the DHF and don't have much to show for it.
I am sure we might even see some better price action with the daily selling action being removed.
I agree, the DHF funding likely had a price impact, being constant selling pressure and not enough value produced in return.
Which one do you think? No, it wasn't Value Plan. 😀 It was Inleo, but still, I think many have put them in the same category already, rightfully or not.
😆😂 Priceless.
There are a few things that most people somehow "don't see" or "don't want to see"...
The Ecency proposal is funded, which is a showcase that it is possible to be funded... Is the return proposal too high or too low is subjective, it's also subjective which of those two would centralize HIVE more...
The regular excuse is that people are dormant and don't vote on proposals... It is partly true, but again, Ecency is funded... I do check proposals and I know that probably the majority of whales and orcas do the same... As there is no "against" button, people who disagree don't vote... But, I could bet that they have seen proposals... This means that they DO CARE, but don't want to support it...
I think that the "NO" vote works very well on Splinterlands and it could work well for DHF too... Btw. that's the other thing... People take it too personally when you don't vote for the proposal... It's not just a YES or NO question, as there are many things that we do or don't like... Maybe the amount is too high, lack of transparency, don't have a clear goal, no impact, or in the end, no trust in the proposal, etc.
We are going in circles over and over again... We would like decentralization but with OUR rules, and to have control over someone else... That will not work...
Yes, I actually noticed even before the sudden increase to the RP threshold how MANY votes Ecency and even PeakD proposals had. That must say something, with all the promotion of the proposal going on. I think one thing that enough of the big stakeholders are bothered about by comparison is open source versus closed source, when the latter isn't generally funded by the DHF. It's true, in this case, we are talking about marketing, not development that should be funded. Another factor to consider is that sometimes votes are cast based on personal chemistry, which may exist or not. It's not the best thing to do, but understandable...
It hasn't crossed my mind that any significant stakeholder still active on Hive hasn't noticed the Inleo proposal. It would have been difficult, since they have been trying to convince people to vote on it one by one. It was definitely a choice either to not vote (as a way to vote against it) or to not vote as a way to not get involved. By the way... How do we know who has what opinion in this case?
I also think there are some legitimate debates about hitting previous targets, but they have probably been doing much better than the other marketing fund that got almost immediate support every quarter.
I'm waiting to see what other projects get funded besides Ecency, and who will get them passed the threshold. Then, we can talk about control and centralization.
I think to a large extent the proposals were so bad, because the overall impression was "wow, there is money up for grabs, so let´s request it, or otherwise it is not used anyway". There was no punishment for bad proposals with the low threshold and not enough reasoning why a particular one should be funded, why it is really needed and worth the dilution. And most of them got renewed.
Now it is not as easy anymore to get to that honey pot, so it is only good - for the Hiveprice (25K HBD less selling per day) and for the quality of any future proposal that might come up.
I really hope that @blocktrades will stay with his decision!
I would agree. But how do you get 36% of the staked HIVE (more actually, if we account inactives without proxy) to vote on a proposal? What I see going on next, if this continues, is a push for HP stakeholders to proxy their governance vote, maybe for a small incentive (a platform already does that for a good while, but not with terrible success, apparently). So, we will probably have more HP voting on governance, but a strong hit to decentralization, indirectly.
And proposals will still get funded, eventually...
If ecency can get funded, any other reasonable one can get, too.
Maybe. Not everyone has a highly used front end that reminds and encourages users to vote on their proposal (I don't know if ecency does that, but others do). Not that this would work for every stakeholder. For some, it is an annoyance, especially if the reminder is continuously displayed.
Hear hear!
In my opinion the DHF doesn't work the way it is setup now. Also it is a flaw to think that the DHF contains real value. It contains potential Hive inflation and everything that is distributed over it is actually reducing the value of all our tokens. So whatever project is funded is at the expense of us the token holders.
In my opinion, the DHF should be used to invest in return bringing assets on other blockchains. Only the return of these assets should be distributed to projects. Also there should be a process how funds are allocated and what should be part of the obligations of projects that are funded. Otherwise it's just free money and the corruption that goes with that.
Yes, that makes sense. An argument can be made that if a project brings more value than it takes out, that's a net positive. But we haven't been very lucky on that, especially as projects like to drag their feet to get more funding over time.
That is... interesting. But would require removing the current proposals system and voting in some people who can manage investments on other chains. Maybe as a middle system. And then, use the profits (but what if there are losses?) to fund the proposals system. Quite complicated and risky, maybe.
I totally agree with this:
and it's something I've been saying for a while now. Obviously, I'm not the only one.
That unfortunately is how it seems to be. Too bad we had to wake up in the bull market, when maybe some funds could have a good usage.
It looks like he removed that return proposal vote, but it was kind of crazy to see. I wonder what the inside story is, but maybe we won't ever know.
Yep! I saw that yesterday. In the end I thought it would have been a great idea if it led to an overhaul of the DHF system. Otherwise, just an useless show of power, maybe a test.
Update: Btw, I was right in my assumptions from my post. The Inleo proposal getting funded or close to it prompted Blocktrades vote of the RP, not anything else. After he removed his vote on the RP, their proposal got funded for a short while, then they lost the vote of theycallmedan. At least they shouldn't bother pursuing this avenue anymore, because they won't get the DHF funding, no matter what.
I'm just glad that Ecency is being funded because I love that team. They provide a hopeful ladder for new users to climb
Everyone is back to being funded because Blocktrades removed his vote on the return proposal. Except the Inleo proposal, which lost a big vote and dropped below the line again.
Some of the proposals owners have gotten complement because they're almost guaranteed their proposals will pass when they hit the DMs of some people. It's a shame they do the politics off chain, because it promptes more lack of transparency
Someone once texted me saying one of the countries that digs well aren't actually using all the money to do so and that they're just pocketing the funds. It was really sad to hear it from an insider myself.
I wonder why he removed the vote on the return proposal, I honestly thought we were up to something big and revolutionary
I wouldn't cheer for that eventuality either, where he would have left the vote in but nothing else happened to reform the DHF.
Some spendings are hard to justify, for sure. It is also very difficult to have an oversight remotely, in many cases.
Unfortunately, it seems to have been all about the Inleo proposal, as I expected (initially). He backed down due to pressures, but soon after, theycallmedan removed his vote from the Inleo proposals, and then, others started to do it.
The inleo proposal? But I thought readjusting everything was the goal? Oh my!
It would have been better to be like that.
If more people remove their votes from the return proposal then it could swing things, but I think this is a general good in that it getting people thinking and talking about it. It should not be taken for granted that a project will be funded. I support those that I think give benefits to the community.
I also think there are a few projects that got caught in the crossfire without deserving it. Maybe they'll get funding back, we'll see...
But personally, I'd be much happier if this shock triggers a reform of the DHF system, which has shown its limitations.
I am just hoping that Hive can still have a good value
I'm sure it will. Probably better, if things get moving in the direction they should for a long time. But hard to say if this is enough to change things.
well lets support ecency now, for me it is a good app but it needs a few upgrades :D
I'm fine with Ecency. Great app, even though I have different preferences (got used to PeakD mostly, and publishing main posts on Inleo).
best thing thats happened to Hive for years....
Maybe it is. Something needed to shake things up. The problem is, what next? If this is all, then we've accomplished pretty much nothing except remove a source of selling pressure from inflation which could have been better used.
The timing is not the greatest maybe, but better late than never.
ye well a collective is hard to manage.....it needs someone to take it by the horns!
Really something to watch unfold, @gadrian. For pure entertainment value, if nothing else, as the (head) games to follow should prove out ...
Are you able to say which one this is? And ... Do you know that for certain or just your well-educated opinion?
It's an opinion... The threshold was practically doubled as the Inleo proposal was about to or maybe even passed the RP threshold. Something that happened before, with the same proposal, but in a less dramatic manner.
IF, but it's a big "if", the move was motivated by other reasons too, I am hopeful to see an overhaul of the DHF system, which is definitely broken, and not because Inleo couldn't get funded (there are many reasons why they couldn't, and every little bit counts). The system itself is broken as most commenters already remarked, and we know for a long time.
Thank you for that clarification.
Agreed that the DHF has long been a source of frustration / aggravation. At least for any one who spends more than a few minutes attempting to understand it ... Frankly, it is sad it has taken this long to do something ... And only then when @blocktrades has personally chosen to act ...
Will this stand up? At least long enough for a viable alternative to be proposed? I'll "stick a sock in it," as far as my personal opinion ...
I hope for you and others, it all reaches a much (much?) higher plateau of contributing to the success of the Hive blockchain, in the not too distant future, than it has ever achieved in the past.
I agree it is sad it has taken so long to have a change. Hopefully it is the precursor of an overhaul, and not a simple threshold doubling, which would be bad (to remain only at this level of action).
The DHF has been around since the legacy chain actually. Probably since 2019. And only had one update shortly after its release and then I think one or two minor updates later on (like the possibility to reduce the price you ask without creating a new proposal).
I believe DHF has been a good reason of the inflation in HIVE
... and will continue to be. The inflation to the DHF hasn't stopped. Only its distribution, for now.
The problem is if this show of force is followed by a restructuring of the DHF system and its rules, or if only the bar raised. In the later case, it's a disappointment in my eyes. In the former case, we might be on to something, hopefully.
The DHF has been a source of HIVE inflation and dilution for existing HIVE holders for a while now. Think everyone knows this already but I'm still surprised that the return proposal got upvoted that much.
I agree. What can I say? Maybe Blocktrades got inspired by one of Trump's power moves. 🤣
It does seem a system that having one proposal provoke outrage enough that one person can defund the majority of other proposals, neither decentralised or fair in my opinion
He has the same right as you and me to support something or not... That's decentralization and freedom to do with its stake what he wants...
I don't see anything wrong with that...
It's not that I disagree that he has the right to support it, I just think that the support of one thing should not, irrelevant of his own opinion on them, mean that everything else should not be supported, it's a failure of the system to give no support to everything just because you don't support one thing.
I agree that the system should be changed, but we can't accuse Blocktrades of not playing by the (current) rules... It's net positive that this happened to show that it needs to be changed...
Agreed, it’s not a person problem it’s a system problem
DHF needs a reform, that's clear. And I said this for at least a year if not more.
This might affect the price of Hive moving forward
Without considering other factors (and we should!), this is a few dozens of HBD less selling pressure every day.
Congratulations @gadrian! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 53/63) Liquid rewards.