3speak @threespeak hat ein Kostenreduktions-Programm für Hive vorgeschlagen, um besser durch einen etwaigen Bärenmarkt zu kommen.
Die wichtigsten Punkte sind, die Kosten von bestehenden existenziellen DAO-Projekten zu halbieren und die Auszahlung für alle nicht unbedingt benötigten "nice to have"-Projekte einzustellen.
Viele DAO-Projekte erzeugen meiner Meinung nach kaum einen Mehrwert bzw. erfüllen ihre großen Versprechungen nicht.
Denke es wäre wichtig, dass mehr Hiver für das Return Proposal stimmen, um nicht benötigte Projekte zu defunden, bzw. ein fixes Quorum von zum Beispiel 50% einzuführen.
Was ist ein Quorum? Ein Quorum bezeichnet einen Mindest-Anteil an Stakeholdern bzw. Stake, die für ein Projekt stimmen müssen, damit es finanziert wird.
Die jetzige Situation mit dem Return Proposal ist unbefriedigend, da ein Stakeholder mit nur 7% (bzw. 17% Staked Hive, Hive Power) über die Funds im DAO bestimmen kann.
Oder anders ausgedrückt, mit nur $5 Millionen Dollar an Hive (Hive Power), erhält man die Kontrolle über die derzeit $22 Millionen HBD im Hive DAO Fund.
Die Idee ist, dass zum Beispiel mindestens 50% der aktiven Hive Power ein Proposal unterstützen muss, damit es finanziert wird.
Aktiv ist die Hive Power eines Users dann, wenn der User zum Beispiel Hive das letzte Jahr benutzt hat, eine beliebige Transaktion oder ein Governance-Vote getätigt hat. Wobei bei letzterer Definition der Anteil wieder niedrig ausfallen würde.
Steve Trost hat noch eine interessante Idee ins Spiel gebracht und zwar, dass das Quorum (die HP-Schwelle, ab der ein Propsoal gefundet wird) von den Witnesses mit einem neuen Witness-Parameter festgelegt wird. Ähnlich wie die Witnesses die HBD-Verzinsung festlegen.
Finde die Idee gut und apropos HBD, irgendwann müssen wir uns bei steigenden HBD-Schulden auch überlegen, ob es nicht sinnvoll wäre, die Zinsen auf HBD wieder zurückzufahren, da 20% Zinsen auf einen Stablecoin nicht nachhaltig sind.
Was sagt ihr zu dem Cost-Cutting-Vorschlägen? Habt ihr schon für das Return Proposal gevotet? Würdet ihr die Einführung eines Quorum, das die Witnesses festlegen, unterstützen?
Hive Cost Cutting Program
~~~ embed:1821271277606465888 twitter metadata:VHJvc3RQYXJhZG94fHxodHRwczovL3R3aXR0ZXIuY29tL1Ryb3N0UGFyYWRveC9zdGF0dXMvMTgyMTI3MTI3NzYwNjQ2NTg4OHw= ~~~
English
3speak @threespeak has proposed a cost reduction program for Hive to better navigate a possible bear market.
The main points are to halve the cost of existing existential DAO projects and to stop paying out for all non-essential "nice to have" projects.
In my opinion, many DAO projects hardly generate any added value and do not fulfill their big promises either.
I think it would be important for more hivers to vote for the "Return Proposal" in order to defund unneeded projects, or to introduce a fixed quorum of 50%, for example.
What is a quorum? A quorum is a minimum percentage of stakeholders/stake who must vote in favor of a project for it to be funded.
The current situation with the Return Proposal is unsatisfactory, as a stakeholder with only 7% (or 17% Staked Hive, Hive Power) can decide on the funds in the DAO.
Or to put it another way, with only $5 million dollars of Hive (Hive Power), you get control of the current $22 million HBD in the Hive DAO Fund.
The idea is that, for example, at least 50% of the active Hive Power must support a proposal for it to be funded.
A user's Hive Power is active if, for example, the user has used Hive in the last year, has made any transaction or has cast a governance vote. In the latter definition, the percentage would be low again.
Steve Trost has brought another interesting idea into play, namely that the quorum (the HP threshold above which a proposal is funded) is determined by the Witnesses with a new Witness parameter. Similar to how the Witnesses determine the HBD interest rate.
I think it's a good idea and, speaking of HBD, at some point we'll have to consider whether it would make sense to lower the interest on HBD as 20% interest on a stablecoin is not sustainable.
What do you think of the cost-cutting proposals? Have you already voted for the return proposal? Would you support the introduction of a quorum set by the Witnesses?
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
HBD interest wurde (leider) schon auf 15% verringert... gut möglich dass es noch weiter gesenkt wird.
Ist ja schon passiert. 😉
!BEER
Oh das ging aber schnell
I don't think that pushing the bar too high is wise - imagine you "lose" some of the whales due to their innactivity. They will continue autovoting for content the same way they do now, but will not support any proposal / only support the Return Proposal. Getting the DHF funding would then become virtually impossible.
Also, I believe the DHF should be quite inclusive. However, the community needs to start demanding accountability, and tangible outcomes. We shall not support money-wasting. Yet that is up to our own respensibility, I am not a huge fan of creating extra rules and barriers.
Which of the 14 do not fulfill their promises and which hardly generate any added value if there are "many"? And is the added value meant for you as a blogger, investor or for Hive as a whole?
Quorum
Setting a quorum hard in the source code is a no-go and would destroy the DAO completely. The proposed witness parameter only shifts the power of decision (from when proposals go through) even further away from the community. I have no idea what this is supposed to achieve (apart from the necessary witness votes to set the stake as active) - the witnesses can also simply vote on the return proposal. The ones with the biggest stake are in the top 20 anyway, aren't they?
20 / 15%
The witnesses voted on 20% (now 15%). Every witness is free to set this value differently. I think that the value has always been far too high and is still far too high at 15%. I believe we have made the current situation even worse with this value - which sounds like a scam to outsiders anyway and did not attract any major investors. Furtnately internal witness discussions and maybe the tweet made some change and we are now on 15%.
The Big Defund
We have now reached the point where we want to defund the people who really make progress on/for Hive...
In my opinion, it would be a very bad sign if the only 14 active projects had to discontinue and propose greatly reduced costs. There are real people behind it who reserve their time and skills for Hive and, in my personal opinion, bring real value to the chain. Getting a proposal over the return proposal at all is already extremely difficult and requires a lot of work/networking. These people could spend their time working on other chains or projects and certainly "earn" a lot more money with their skills. They are also less likely to be accused of enriching themselves on other chains like here on Hive, where it is common to devalue developer work. Without these developers, we would still be at the technological level of 2020 or earlier... Of course, some transparency regarding the income that goes into the teams' pockets would be useful and necessary. But I think that the thinking here is far too short-term/narrow-minded and without regard to the Hive image within the crypto scene.
Which developer would make a proposal when knowing about this story? If you can't even begin to rely on the requested revenue (there's never a guarantee - that's clear), you'd rather go somewhere else. A blockchain with no/hardly any technological progress is not something I want to invest my time in. And what's the point of this whole thing anyway? Currently <7% of the daily available HBD is paid out to these projects. I think this whole scandal (yes it would be one) would do very little positive and many negative things for the Hive chain. Reducing the APR would be a much better approach.
And assuming the situation that all proposals are outvoted, the return proposal goes to 50m HP - then few to no more proposals will go through and we are at a standstill. We would then have to live without the decentralization of the UIs (because they can't pay the bills), the further development of the core code, the coming smart contracts, and HiveSQL/HAFSQL etc. We would be a smaller name in the cryptosphere with one hit. I don't want a Hive where frontends close down, we have to go back to https://hive.blog and I have to recode all my bots because neither HiveSQL nor HAFSQL work anymore. And even this "recoding" will be difficult because no one will care about the libraries/APIs we use on a daily basis.
That said, I interpret 3speak's tweet as more of a bashing of the already active projects. Doing that on X is a weird move on its own- why don't they do it here on Hive? At least they are not part of the many people who accuse proposal teams of enriching themselves while not doing anything for the progress of Hive except blogging, staking and maybe investing. At least they do something and try to bring Hive forward.
We learned from the one I still won't name that drama brings in the users.
He had epic drama.
Gif's and memes galore.
So, perhaps this airing of the dirty laundry on X will bring in some eyeballs.
More likely not as the problems of user retention have been plainly stated for a long time, but too few will give up power willingly for a bet on human kindness and mutual respect.
Crapitalism has put the kibosh on mutual aid.
What is the use of the further development of the core code if no people join the network? Do you think a tiny better infrastructure will attract the masses?
We have already a fairly good product, just the efficient marketing is not there.
And by efficient marketing I don´t mean a super expensive rally car or a great film noboby can watch.
schon geschehen ;)
I think I will vote on the Return proposal. I didn't want to because I wanted the Splinterlands proposal to pass (it's a huge mistake for Hive to not pass it) but that ship has sailed and I don't see we ever passing it now so I might as well vote for the Return proposal.
I am still getting a hang of how Hive governance works and the role of witnesses in Hive governance.
I legit hate the return proposal. Because let's say there's a project above it I don't believe in so I would vote for the return proposal ok that helps maybe. But then there is a project below the return proposal I do want to support and pass. Well now my return proposal vote is nullinvoiding all of my votes. The entire voting system needs an overhaul of where a threashold has to be reached say 66% in order for it to pass. This would mean I can simply not vote on the ones I don't want to support but vote on the ones I do want to support without some middle line constantly adjusting that also needs my vote.
Yes, one should have the possibility of downvoting proposals, that would create an interesting dynamics!
50% would be too much. That would defund ALL current proposals.
The whole point of the return proposal is to have a movable bar to entry without it we'd likely never get anything funded.
User participation is extremely low, even IF we advertise the crap out of the DHF and urge everyone to vote it will STILL be extremely low. Because no one cares about this kind of stuff. be it too much work or they can't make a decision one way or another.
Using 'active' stake would also not work as a lot of it is 'active' because it's automated following curation trails and the likes which skews the numbers and makes thing unattainable.
Best bet is vote for the return proposal if the bar is too low. Doing so is basically a big fat downvote for all proposals except the ones you also vote for.
splinterlands has 878 voters, 28.9 million HP..
hivebuzz has over 2000 voters 29.9 million HP
In the end.. you need blocktrades, smooth, marky, any of the other multi million HP whales to vote if you want to pass at the CURRENT return proposal level..
Our userbase is too small and seemingly doesn't care for governance so any system we implement will not work how we want it to work.. unfortunately
I'm a hive witness supporting the blockchain.
Good points, I think this is the tragedy of democracy, people just don't care enough or don't have the time to vote. Making informed and good decisions is costly.
It is, education is probably one of the only things that could change this.
And I'm not talking about just teaching people that governance is a thing andnthe dhf exists but really drilling in the whole concept of having tangible power and influence.
Our toughest job on hive is changing society itself to believe it has the power to change and influence things and making people want to engage to influence things.
I don't think it is feasible. There are a lot of dead accounts that are inactive and the Hive there is also inactive. So I don't think we can get anywhere close to that 50%.
Sehr schwieriges Thema. Glaube es müsste ganz überdacht werden.
Vielleicht müsste eher auch sowas, wie Teilausschüttungen. Also wenn nur x% Votes werden 25% ausgeschüttet, bei Y% Votes 50% und für 100% müssen es Z% Votes sein.
Auch schwierig, weil für die einen etwas vielleicht wichtig ist und für andere nicht.
Manche Sagen ja, das alles da unwichtig ist und hive nicht voranbringt und andere, das alles wichtig und gerechtfertigt ist.
Ich wäre ja dafür, das auch ein Rechenschaftsbericht pflicht wäre, also das man berichten muss, wofür das Geld ausgegeben wurde.
Welche findest du denn da schon wichtig, welche nicht.
Vielleicht welche schon wichtig, aber das der Betrag ggf. zu hoch ist.
Das kommt ja dazu, manche sind sicherlich wichtig für Hive, aber man müsste überlegen ob nicht die Beträge doch etwas hoch sind.
Finde die Projekte, die direkt mit der Hive-Entwicklung und Frontends zu tun haben, am wichtigsten, Core Dev, peakd, ecency, keychain, eventuell hive sql, alles andere ist "nice to have", eventuell sind auch die laufenden Kosten zu hoch angesetzt. Krypto-Projekte sollten sich meiner Meinung nach am freien Markt behaupten und nicht vom DAO subventioniert werden.
Ja das finde ich auch, gerade Frontend ist wichtig, denn nur mit guten Frontends können Nutzer gehalten werden.
Peakd und Ecency sind tatsächlich da wirklich gut und auch gerade die aecenvy App.
Inleo wird so allmählich gut, wobei hier ja das Problem ist, das es mehr auf Leo ausgelegt ist als auf Hive. Das Onboarding ist viel zu teuer.
Die Frontends müssten m.M. nach auch zusehen Einnahmen zu generieren die zur Kostendeckung beitragen und auch zusätzlich ins Hiveökosystem gelangen.
Das ginge durch Werbung und Business Accounts.
I would love HBD Interest rate to be lowered. 20% is insane IMO
!LUV
@vikisecrets, @valggav(1/1) sent you LUV. | tools | discord | community | HiveWiki | <>< daily
Klingt sinnvoll. Hast du nen Link zu dem Proposal von @3speak?
Wurde bis jetzt nur auf X gepostet, siehe Posting.
Ok also noch kein vote-bares Proposal bisher.
The problem is that the projects that are funded either have no use for Hive or are oversized. They also provide no justification for their expenses and progress.
Oversized is relative and yes 2-3 could be a bit oversized in my opinion as well but: Please name one funded proposal that does not have a use for Hive.
Ich bin noch nicht lange hier dabei und kenne die Interna nicht wirklich. Für mich als User ist aber wichtig, dass die Apps / Anwendungen funktionieren.
Einige funktionieren ja ganz gut, aber da gibt es auch noch Verbesserungsbedarf.
https://peakd.com/hive-167922/@blkchn/inleo-tags
für neue User ist der Anfang sehr kompliziert, vor allem, wenn es Menschen sind, die nicht aus der Programmierer / Software-Ecke kommen. Da ist die Hürde, sich hier zu engagieren sehr hoch. Ich habe ein paar Leuten Hive gezeigt, versucht schmackhaft zu machen. Haben alle abgewunken, da es ihnen viel zu komplex war. Auch wenn ich gesagt habe, dass ich sie am Anfang unterstützen würde.
!invest_vote !LUV !PIZZA !wine !WITZ !LOLZ !Hugh
@vikisecrets, @indextrader24(3/5) sent you LUV. | tools | discord | community | HiveWiki | <>< daily
@vikisecrets, @indextrader24(3/5) sent you LUV. | tools | discord | community | HiveWiki | <>< daily
Do what is best, I agree with you
View or trade
BEER.Hey @vikisecrets, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @thehockeyfan-at for you. Enjoy it!We love your support by voting @detlev.witness on HIVE .
I know nothing much about proposals but it will be good to learn about them
Cost cutting is a good thing, i will give it a look.
Aber es wurde noch kein diesbezügliches Proposal ausformuliert. Die sollen einfach mal machen und sehen, wieviele es voten. Ich würde auch bei den derzeitigen Proposals großzügig streichen.
I am quite seeing that this proposal will be revised