I'm voting for the proposal because I think we need more people involved in this and such research will be beneficial for the whole ecosystem. However, I cannot agree with everything in the post as I feel there are a couple of invalid statements and planned actions that do not bring much value, like research for DHF feedback. I do not believe it will change anything in how and who votes for the proposals. I can write more later on if necessary.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Thanks for your vote and comments!
The DHF part is really a secondary add-on that fits the goal we have of optimizing Hive to become more attractive to end-users, developers and investors. Ultimately, the DHF is the most effective tool we have to enhance and grow Hive overall and other similar projects make their DAO the focal point of their entire project. It seems logical to me to investigate how this key selling point of the Hive system can be improved. I know for 100% certain that poor tracking/accountability is a major turn off to investors when it comes to spending of funds (including DAOs).
However, I also set the intention that this project would be as data driven as possible, rather than driven by my own opinion (or any individual's opinion) - so which specific tasks would be undertaken, including any related to the DHF, will be finalised once the initial data collection and analysis is done. That way, any actions that we plan that go beyond market research will be backed by real world data.
Optimising the DHF is not an easy thing to do, which is why this proposal really only makes mention of it in terms of research and we would not be putting a lot of time into that area regardless of what the data says.