Hopefully the tone at the end there doesn't scare people away from participating. Even now as I say this, part of me feels like I'm walking on eggshells.
Did I say this correctly? Will I be misconstrued? Will a miscommunication lead to shunning? Am I viewed as one of these "active blockers" for voting for the return proposal even though my vote was there before this all began, meaning I could have been away like so many others during summer, only to come back and discover the entire SPL crew hates me for some strange reason...
That proposal system worked the same way it did before the SPL proposal went live. Right now I see the return proposal, or the bar, moving up, inching closer to Ecency. Does this mean people are trying to block them? I wouldn't make that conclusion. Maybe it has more to do with the endless complaints about Valueplan. Maybe those people disagree with that spending so much they actually took action rather than just complaining. Hard to say what's going on, and why. Maybe they're in support of raising the bar, for everyone, since so many complain about spending in general.
Easy to see it boils down to people making choices independently. To be expected. The D in DHF does stand for Decentralized. Does each move need to come with an explanation? I don't think so. Maybe others do, and that's fine.
Products like Peakd and Ecency would receive support naturally from the community simply because so many use those products combined with owning HP. When SPL proposal went live, I was under the impression SPL was in the same boat. And I still think there's a lot of support available out there, somewhere, for SPL. Looking forward to seeing it.
I use Peakd so I've supported Peakd now and in the past. I don't use Ecency so I have not supported Ecency now or in the past. Does not mean I'm against the existence of Ecency. I'm happy people have options and freedom to choose.
I have not put my vote behind the SPL proposal but this does not mean I don't want it here. Just because Burger King exists, that doesn't mean I have to support them, even though they bring value to the community, somehow. I don't play SPL. And I think those who enjoy it are free to be in support of it. They're responsible for its success in the same way Burger King customers contribute.
I don't know enough about SPL in general. All the people saying it brings value and people and good times forever is just hearsay to me. I can't base my decision off that.
Do Burger King people try to make the lives of those not in support of their business, difficult? Of course not.
Nonames, this is definitely one of the best responses I’ve read on this matter. I appreciate your thoughts on it.
I’m a SPL player since 2019, and recently working hard to learn more about Hive and become more active in the greater community (I just voted for my first DHF) . I hope to meet and engage with more people like you.
In terms of your Burger King comment, I think you could also look at it in this way, sometimes people vote to increase funding for their local schools, even though they don’t have children, because they feel it’s what is best for their community.
I realize I am biased, but I genuinely do feel that what is good for Splinterlands is also good for Hive. The issue is that Hive works so well for a game like Splinterlands that we have rarely had to come out of our bubble to engage in the Hive ecosystem - this needs work (and Matt has already taken steps for this with Hive promotion inside the game). We should all be one big family working together to pull each other up.
I’m here to learn and listen and do my best to bring our two communities closer together.
This is how I vote on proposals too, and actually in these two specific examples, the same exact way for the same exact reasons.
But when people have the luxury and entitlement to vote, they should do so fully informed and fully aware of the things they vote on, not just future looking hype, but also past performance. Of the projects themselves and how they actually did or did not help the chain community, the crypto value and/or the chain technology. (grow a healthy engaged and retained userbase, grow money value, improve infrastructure.) One may or may not also choose to consider the past performance of project sponsors as trustworthy, reliable and competent and capable. Those are the levers that move underneath "future hype" coming to fruition anyway.
I need real hard, rigid arguments for these things to win my vote, and a couple of the most controversial proposals right now, basically SPL and ValuePlan really deserve a lot of scrutiny for the size of the asks vs these criteria. (grow a healthy engaged and retained userbase, grow money value, improve infrastructure.)
Would it be rational to support something that did well in the past, just because they did well in the past?
Saddles. They did well in the past. Want to go all in on saddles with me?
I think if someone was directly asking for funds to cover the costs of productive actions in the past, I'd feel comfortable supporting that, if those actions were contributing to the future, in a way that can be observed.
I don't see thousands of people supporting that proposal. Yet one of the claims to fame was attracting thousands of people.
I don't care how much HP anyone has. They already have an account here and all they need to do is push a button to support a proposal.
Hype is useless. Why am I not seeing these people supporting the proposal!
Am I to just believe they exist? Or does this lead me to believe they don't?
Point taken on the saddles cowboy. I get what you mean by it in context.
But take this journey with me using the same metaphor differently.
If the saddle maker said, hey we realized we did well with saddles but horses are over now, and now its all about Mustang GT seat covers and we've got a market for those and can make them with our expert proven saddle makers, but we need some money to retool, buy embroidery thread and carry on, and we have some funds amassed from being successful but need a little more to get going, I'd probably consider an investment in the former saddle cum upholstery company a pretty safe bet. A gamble but one with a track record of winning
But if those selling the saddles had basically run their companies out of business and cash by making shitty saddles or selling the ones they got via a black market rustler ring, or simply making saddles nobody ever wanted to buy even if the saddle market was hot, and had no money of their own to bring to the table because they blew it all, but wanting a ton more to "continue", and their leadership had been known to be either inexperienced or downright incompetent in their roles over the past, I'd be taking my wallet and getting in my Camaro SS and leaving their Mustang seat cover company in the dust.
I think I just agreed with you, now that I read both our comments back.
Your eyes don't deceive you, all those thousands spent on 'safe travel to important conventions' and 'keynotes in ubers and fancy locales' haven't brought thousands of users, we're bleeding users bigly over the years, the community statisticians often post user onboarding charts and that line goes down and right or at best flatlines lately.
We'd be better off taking 150K and giving people $5 to sign up, that would bring us 30,000 new users, and after the cash grabbers take their 5 bucks and leave, we might actually retain a healthy percentage that jump on board, contribute new life, content, code, ideas, and investment money.
Never know? I'd rather experiment with giving out the 5 dollar signup incentive than sending 150K to put 3 dolphins up in a fancy hotel with a gourmet meal per diem, in some European city to give a slide show 3 or 4 times a year to other sponsored conference attending people from wherever, that end up just investing in bitcoin anyway.
Dude, this is Earth, and we're talking about humans. That $5 per individual totaling 150k would go to the first 100 people already here and able to create accounts faster than others.
BOOM, you just dropped a big old truth bomb.