When it comes to Hive, there are truly no black and white and this is because of its decentralized nature.
To me, decentralization is not the same as being decentralized in nature. Hive is the latter rather than the former, which means that we (Hive) check a lot of boxes when it comes to decentralization, but pure decentralization would be unrealistic and impractical, so we are mostly close to being decentralized in nature.
I have seen a lot of people who appear to imply that we aren't, and they have an argument. On the old platform, there was vote selling, and many of these guys amassed a large stake by selling votes, which was airdropped when we forked to Hive. However, these are all sentiments.
Some of Hive's problems appear simple on the surface, but they are complex due to the mechanisms required to solve them. For example, advertising could be the simplest method of onboarding. It might work in other places, but not at Hive. Now it is frustrating because what worked so well there will not work here.
A lot of people have made suggestions and so on, and nothing seems to be done, which is very frustrating because it appears that a lot is being said but nothing is being done, but this is primarily due to the method of governance.
People who believe Hive is not sufficiently decentralized may find that decentralization has its own set of issues.
However, many are complaining because of what decentralization truly means. Most of these "decentralization talks" take place because a few people have a lot at stake while the vast majority do not.
However, these stakes are not created out of thin air. Some of these guys were early adopters, and we are all familiar with the benefits of early adoption. In reality, everyone understands what we must do, but it appears complicated when it comes to doing it, which sometimes leads people to compare us to sites like Facebook and Twitter; we are more complex than that.
We cannot be both simple and complex at the same time, despite our strong desire to do so.
I saw a post today where the poster discussed valueplan bleeding over $2 million from the chain while returning almost no value. Many people have discussed valueplan and other topics, but these discussions become more apparent when the token's price does not rise as much as many believe it should.
Stop the fund from going to valueplan, seems like a simple solution.
For example, Khabe Lame would have simply said, "Stop the fund," and the problem would be solved, but this is a political and decentralized issue. The funding for the Ghanaian project, and so on. It is purely political.
There are people who want ValuePlan to have all of that funding, and there are those who do not. Unfortunately, those who want the funding to continue are the ones who count. It looks unreal or doesn't make sense, but that's how it works here.
Stakeholders speak; you must have them to exert influence.
While these systems appear to be flawed, they function as failsafes. They are intended to give people with the most clout in the chain a stronger voice in decision-making processes.
To some extent, I believe the value provided by valueplan does not match the funds disbursed, and I understand that reducing funding is practical, but as I previously stated, it is a political decision, and the ordinary voice may not always make a difference.
Does this make us bad?
No, I just think we're seeing the side effect that comes with the many perks of Hive. Valueplan funding, like Hivewatchers, will be a long-term issue.
Do I agree that we can treat these issues more seriously?
I believe we can and should do, but we usually do; it is just that we are probably slower. Take it this way: there are no perfect systems, as we all know, but I agree that people want it to improve, and I believe it should.
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
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
I think that with the implimentation of HBD, this caused the start of Hive becoming very centralised and you can see this in the way that certain people have taken up jobs with an "income" for doing them. Over time, with the tokenomics of HBD, this has skewed things even more. The only way to rectify this would be to burn the DHF and reduce the HBD interest back to 3% or abandon the token altogether.
Quite often I see the DHF being referred to as belonging to the community, this could not be more further from the truth.
I agree with your take as well. HBD changed the system completely and those interest rates are just way too high!
The tokenomics of HBD are some of the worst I have seen on any chain.
The problem is that most people here don't really understand how the system works. HBD is a problem that will have to be dealt with. Cutting the interest to 15 was something, but it needs to be much, much lower...
This is one measure, the other is the size of HBD now is over half the market cap and whether Hive can financially support the peg too? I don't think it can...
This problem is mostly because Hive goes through a 3-year bear market and 1-year bull market, at most. Maybe even more skewed toward bear market. And during that time, a higher amount of HIVE is needed to keep HBD at peg.
Hive is an old token now, we didn't have any meaningful cycle this time so far..
I agree that the interest of HBD should be further reduced. For me, 10% is still very good, as you know it's a pure incentivization and I don't blame those who want to be here for the interest alone. Most people in crypto just want to make profit.
Although I think the DHF is the bigger issue, and that's probably where most of us agree.
Yes, the DHF expense is the largest monthly expense for Hive right now.
I understand it's probably very annoying to watch how nothing is being done about it.
Not really, that's why we stack sats.
Maybe funding from the DHF and Value Plan should be given to projects that have a proven track record of onboarding useful people to the chain. These are the people who can influence Hive price afterall, so it just makes sense that the projects that are bringing the biggest impact be the ones that continue to get funding. The problem here is how different people define impact. For some people, it's real world impact. For others, it's impact on price. This is where the division on how useful Value Plan's funds are being spent arises.
You're right, however it's probably going to take very long for us to get to this level where we start doing something about valueplan.
Some stakeholders do not really like it and many of them have expressed their distaste towards it, but so far, nothing has been happening.
It might take something more serious to enact that change
Hive funding should be done on more projects at lower value as I believe that we need more experimenting and trying. It is like we are putting all the eggs in one basked, which from risk point of view it is not wise.
I agree. There are going to be many hit or misses when it comes to funding projects and spending little funds is a good way to go. We're truly experimenting with many proposals and we need to be mindful
I agree with you all the way on this one... Dumping funds into projects that don't have a track record of doing the chain much good is a waste...
Unfortunately it's a political thing. Many people have called for the reduction of the fund going to value plan, but nothing is really changing and it's really bad.
bhattg thank you
There is no perfect system and I think there are a lot of things that can improve. I do agree that there are quite a few things where I see them draining the system. I don't particularly like it but at the same time, I haven't seen anyone propose a better system.
There aren't perfect places but the problems is that we also have to follow through with the developments that are happening in so many places. However, I'm happy with what we have, but we can get better.
I bought into the advertising on the hopes that it might help, but now I think we need to incentivize devs to develop competing dex's through vsc contracts.
Blogging for pennies isn't doing it.
We need more utility demand for hive/hbd.
At some point we've all actually called for some advertising and it's gone really bad especially with some influencers that has some over the years and really don't care.
I think the witnesses just needs to be smarter and come up with something better
Congratulations @josediccus! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 690000 upvotes.
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
STOPCheck out our last posts:
The price is looking pretty low at the moment so this is an opportunity for all of us to buy and we will see that as soon as all the other coins start going up then it will go too.
You are making some points here friend, much still needs to be analyzed so we can come out a stronger community. It's something I just wrote about in my recent article. Check it out; community mindset
It's easy to spend without many restrictions when it seems like you have a lot. Look at Splinterlands and what they have done, and where they are now. I hope the DHF, decentralized as it may be, takes these lessons and doesn't repeat the same mistakes.