I think you nailed on the last part of the text... spot on! And in my view, what the DHF needs is (in my view) another metric to demonstrate value. I will explain this...
Currently only investment in the platform makes it possible for those people to have a "saying" on the DHF, and that's ok (just ok, not perfect, in my view). There are many reasons I will not go through here, from security reasons and knowledge about the consequences of many other situations. But in the end, its like you said, if what DHF is supporting, the majority of the public don't want, how is that attractive or will make HIVE grow right? It's at least less visible to the community... which counts and can also be a marketing mechanism for further projects/businesses/etc.
And in this last point, is where I think there is need for another decentralized way of showing, what is valuable (to everyone). And this could be as simple as something about "number of votes", right? Well, yes and no... because unfortunately, a hive account is a very cheap (even if actually expensive in terms of blockchain terms and data), resource. So one can just adulterate that... hence it would not work!
What could perhaps work, is a way to weight that vs reputation. And that will probably tell us a bit more about what people that are interpreted to be "admired"/valued/voted users, would like to see. Sort of like an upvote/like of the proposals that are not directly influenced by the investment on the platform in terms of "money", but instead, in terms of "presence".
This means that influencers would have a bigger word, and even if they technically might or might not know more important things vs developers that know much better certain consequences, it would indirectly signal what is the community thinking about, and what are they whiling to support. And support here can have multiple ways, that normally conceptualizes in a form of value.
It could be, testers, big users, fame, politics, etc... any form.
Would that need to be factored into a trustless decision for the DHF to work?
Probably... but we would need to experiment to start with. Because two metrics contributing to the decision, would need a form of balance between them. But at least at start, they would influence decision I am guessing... even not counting towards the decentralized decision, when people actually vote for the proposal.
And why not to just approve proposals based on that model you may ask?
Well, its a balance. We don't want to transform technical need of supporting the technology into unvalued effort, and that needs developers whiling to support or get supported too, into further developing the infrastructure design and improvements of the blockchain. So I would say we need both metrics... probably even more, but I am just trying to find one simple one that could help change the way we see things.
This turned out to be bigger than I though, as usual 🤦♂️
Hahahaha... I like long comments as they show that the person is passionate about the topic and that he/she CARES about it! 😃
And it got again complicated... :) While I do agree with almost all the points that you said, I have noticed that we (all) think in the same direction... We are trying to find a better solution for DHF to work... Because of that reason, I wanted to spin things up and write about a different approach, aka VCs and whales...
The problem with my approach is that people are very negative and skeptical about VCs and that someone "else" PAY for things that are built on/for HIVE... That is considered a threat to our "decentralization" which isn't really like that... If we are "open for the public", everyone can create stuff here, with or without (VC) money...
Anyway, I suppose that the solution is somewhere in the middle as it used to be like that... 😃 It's on us to be open-minded and think in more than ONE direction...
Thanks for the awesome comment and thanks you caring about HIVE!
Not necessarily I would say... and I suspect the problem with the options you brainstormed is about where you draw the line between "control" and "investment". Hive will never allow full control from investment (for profit) in my view. And that's because the security part needs to play first.
If these VCs don't see that they have to play the same trustless procedures any other account would have, then that's where the line is drawn in my view... and to that, my question goes, is that enough for them to still invest?
All the other options work and I have been in some of them... exploring and trying to understand how the community reacts (mostly).
The end value here is, that most of this is built in a decentralized way. As many others built "in centralized" pods... concentrated their efforts on a cause. But that sometimes, if corrupted can destroy everything....
Building in a decentralized less efficient way can have its step back, but becomes ultimately, the powerful movement people are seeing. Some things "in real life" take years... 5 to 10 to make the market change. I know this by profession. So, for me, the hive project is a 10 to 15 year make it happen thing. But the difference is the cost to progress... and on hive vs IRL, is like... peanuts! Only the value will matter (not the coin value, but the application one will)!
Enjoy having a great discussion! Thanks...