Agree with you HIVE need a story, a vision. Are we a social network chain/ecosystem? A gaming ecosystem? A dApp ecosystem, ie a general purpose chain? Maybe a future payment chain? From the feature we have in the base layer, we are a social network. That said, I dont think we have conpeling enough social network experience. To many UIs are not sexy, and even not easy to use (think FB, Twiiter, Instagram look and feel with tremendous fast UIs and totally optimised UX experences). For a general purpose chain we 1) miss smart contract on base layer 2) we need to move blogging rewards away from base layer. Though for some time I was inclined to go general purpose full swing, these days I feel we shall stay social network chain. Though whatever we choose as a collective, we shall up our game in creating the services that will play with the masses. And yes, I do believe we shall select one course and all dev shall be fousing on contributing to rhat one course we selected. Whatever that course maybe.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The trick is to choose narrative which is sexy, not limiting in any way and possibly simple. I believe network state fullfils these premises and makes Hive stand out of the crowd.
I just believe we are far off becoming a Network State. Dont know the exact theory of such, but feel we need direct influence on governance, not through witnesses of which most are not looking at as as a society but just focus on technicals. Added to that, we need mucho better governance tools and perhaps also governance itself need to be more democratic on quite a number of aspects. Though I agree, maybe heading towards Network State may be a great road to walk.
The theory is a vision in one man's head. There is no official council of accepting or rejecting Network States. There is no need for constitution and say now we are this or that.
If it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck its a duck.
We need to dump old mental maps about statehood. Network states might vary, have different modes of operating, different governance model, different level of identification with the whole idea. I believe it's more about story at this level.
Noone know what network states will turn out to be in 10 or 50 years. We have one highly not institutionalised, organicly grown, very transparent, tested and open. There might be different ones. The basic thing is: we are group of people acting in coordination for a common interest with monetary independence and a governance model and set of rules.
I didn't realise The Network State is so fresh. Just found the podcast channel over on YT; Started a month or so ago. Also found the book itself. Bookmarked both for later reading and listening.
Interestingly, when I first joined the network of which I won't say the name; The one that preceded us, from which we were born; I ended up in conversation with more than a few peeps about what may be called Network State.
True, a network state doesn't have to go by the concepts we know from nation states. That said, I can imagine The Network State requires some to more of the governance models we use in the nation-state model. For years I didn't really think about this topic anymore. I suppose, need to get my head around it again, since I do very much like experimentation with anything that is out of the norm, or even completely new and undiscovered. I suppose the reason why am hanging in with the HIVE community for the last 6 years 😎
To the note of HIVE being the only one, or part of a few projects that could be, or become a Network State: I think many more projects can be classified as such or heading towards such. Many projects have their communities, and many of them do allow community voting in some way, even if these are polls in a Telegram Group or on Discord. Many do allow at least influence on other governance aspects of things.
Thanks for posting about this, and our conversation, since it did spark renewed interest in digging into this topic. Maybe I should also re-connect with a community formed around this crypto community building a Network State and Nation-State in one, the crypto way 😉
I see this idea being brought up from time to time and I wonder what for? I have not seen it explained. As in, for what purpose would such change serve? What benefit would come from it and conversely, what problems are caused now by having author rewards on the base layer?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, literally that I don't know and am curious, and wonder if you can share the reasoning?
Even when HIVE should stay and/or focus on being a social chain powering different forms of social networks, the HIVE distribution to content on the base layer focusses many users on earning HIVE instead of second-layer tokens linked to new social network initiatives. I think that prevents other tokens to become successful, or at least, makes it more difficult. Added to that, plenty of HIVE is distributed in auto voting manner, or blindly manual voting. Both are kinda not how proof-of-brain should work.
However, I do very much like the distribution of HIVE to whomever, large or small players. So maybe we shall not remove the distribution of HIVE to whomever, but implement a mechanism to distribute HIVE to those contributing to the HIVE eco-system. One of the ideas I have is to establish a kinda distributed governance system which decides on HIVE distributions to users based on all sorts of criteria, not posts or comments though. Such a governance system shall be very active, reviewing on high frequency who should get some of the HIVE we mint every single day. Criteria should be dynamically determined by the community. Those who decide how to distribute should be elected constantly. Many different decision-makers, in independent groups, should be established. How to implement such a governance system, I didn't really detail yet. Somehow I like the set-up of EdenOS, a multi-layer election system with randomness included and the need for re-elections every couple of months. Other governance systems can be thought of as well, of course. But the trick is, those elected should be easily removed when they do 'wrong', whatever we decide is wrong. Added to all of that, we need the proper tools to support such a governance system. I suppose we shall experiment hell out all this before moving into such a new system 😉
When we removed content awarding on the base layer, I believe 2nd layer social tokens get more chances. Plus we reduce the fights over how HIVE is currently distributed. The aforementioned big blind manual votes, the auto votes to lazy authors and all that. And it also helps to position HIVE chain as a true general-purpose chain since the content-rewarding aspects aren't part of the base layer anymore.