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.