Always appreciate your thoughts, analyses, and perspective Marky.
With that said, when I look at what Khal and his team have done and are doing, I think we need more similar efforts, not fewer.
What Hive needs is value creators, not just content creators. And Khal and his team are working on creating value for others with everything they do. Obviously that means different things to different people. That’s why we need MORE teams doing the kinds of things Khal’s team is doing, imho.
I’m a huge fan of building and creating, but we need to be honest with reality.
Then you are a huge fan of INLEO as we are building and creating multi-chain technology for Hive that this chain has only dreamed would be possible. Thank you for your support.
Stop slandering us and try having a productive conversation about how we can continue to add more Hivers to Hive.
As far as I can see, INLEO is doing everything in our power on a daily basis to add more Hivers through our Dash partnership and soon with the other 10 partnerships that our DHF proposal will make possible.
If you have constructive feedback about the next 10 to come (since it is going to happen), I am all ears.
I am 1000% for the creation of new features and apps, and applaud many things you have done, but the end result is a very different story.
Slander implies lying or stating false facts, I provide data and proof and don't just make up numbers or say random things. The word you are thinking about is libel, as is it in writing.
Your "data" is citing a user's activity to comply with your narrative. This has nothing to do with the INLEO team
It has to do with the metrics, and even if you ignore this, the overall metrics show there is not 13,614 monthly active users in growth. Our growth has been pretty much flatline, and that's with your "amazing growth" and the onslaught of AI spam by taskmaster, and the onslaught of spam from spam farms that have cropped up in the last few months, meaning we have actually declined but you can't see it as all this has basically brought it up to about where we were a year ago.
Everything I have stated is backed up by cold hard facts easily provably at the blockchain level with zero bias and spin.
we have to admit, Khal has some balls 😂..smaller than yours though...no one matches your big balls, plus you got the best 3D machine to print any sizes ✊🏻
this all shit show ( one more ) just show how weak the overall system is and how rigged everything is.
At least you have a voice louder than the plebs.
Of course we need to be honest with reality.
The reality I see is that Khal and Eric and their team are building bridges from Hive to lots of other tech and other potential builders, investors, etc.
I’d like to see 10 more teams that are similarly motivated and similarly trying new things. Economic growth is driven by entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurial activity is by definition mired in the depths of uncertainty. Most will fail, some will succeed. A rare few will succeed spectacularly. We need one or two of those rare few here on Hive. To get those rare few requires a wide net and lots of failures and modest successes along the way.
I have no complaints about that.
I said elsewhere, I'd love 100 leos, not 0 or 1. We need far more projects on Hive not less.
We need a new decision-making procedure for the DHF.
From Day 1 I’ve been dismayed by how centralized the Decentralized Hive Fund is.
Any time you have a “Yes” or “No” decision being made by a single group, no matter how large or small the group, that’s not decentralized decision making. DHF should be funded more like KickStarter, imho. Let everyone vote for the projects they want to see funded and once a project has enough support, it can move forward.
Obviously this has the potential for self-vote and circle-vote abuse, so anti-abuse protections would be needed.
One way to handle that would be to have each proposed project have an appointed overseer who is not a member of the project team, who is perhaps randomly assigned from a pool of approved candidates, who gets paid a percentage fee to financially oversee the project.
Or, projects get voted on first, then a competitive process is used to determine who gets paid to execute the project.
The solution is for more people to have stake.