I agree with you. For years people were touting the idea of what Hive stands for and how should we market it. Drove me nuts. To me, this was the exact opposite of decentralization and blockchain.
The entire time, I felt that the promotion should of the applications that are built upon here. Leofinance is starting to pave the way of what is possible.
Ethereum is an excellent parallel to what Hive is seeking to become. It is a technology based cryptocurrency, thus it is all dependent upon what is built on it.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
In a free market, its not enough to deliver the tech and let the market decide what to do with it. The tech shall be brought to existing projects and businesses, and maybe even integrations with their existing tech shall be provided. Crypto is in a stage of market making, ie the supply is there, but the demand is not, or very limited. Added to that, too many chains around for any company to make a good choice what to use, so they go with the biggest brands, or with those chains dealt with by blockchain service/consulting companies. Take Stratis for instance; Their team sells Stratis chain into crypto and fiat based businesses. Accenture, Deloitte and other use private chains and some of the public chains in their advises and offerings. But not HIVE. What will it do to HIVE when Accenture would adopt HIVE as a chain for eg the next generation CRM solutions? Or offer HIVE as Blockchain as a Service running on eg AWS or Azure?
I have so many examples that shows quite the oposite. Great tech down the drain, because it was not market well enough. VHS versus Betamax. Intel versus Mac. DAT never made it really, but was by far superior to any other recording medium at that time, because again, not marketed well. Need I say more? To win is: Great tech addresssing the needs, and all the normal business activiteies in bringing the techn to the market, and help the potential customers to use it, and when needed, run projects to get the tech integrated to the cusomters tech.
If that great tech didn't produce great benefits, then no amount of marketing would create commerce.
Tech isn't product. It's a means of creating awesome product. Marketing is just letting people know there is a wonderful new kind of product, in the end. The product, not the tech, is what is marketable.
Also, skullduggery by clever marketers impacts markets, as it did in the VHS/Beta market. I once competed with Michael Dell for networking contracts with the State of Texas, and he kicked my ass.
I wouldn't bribe anyone, or use any of the other means of ingratiating purchasing managers for state agencies. I'm not accusing Dell of corruption, but that's what I think happened. These things matter a lot in certain markets. I'm not competitive in those markets, and it doesn't matter what tech or products I'm moving.
If content creators can't make money on Hive, they're going where they can make money. That's why so many dissidents are still on Youtube, even self-censoring to cling to that platform.
We seem to be from two different worlds :) Agree to disagree.