There are alot of things I agree on with you.
We should focus individual task completion or at least evaluate iterations so funding gets stopped when someone doesn't deliver.
But a centralized team still goes against the idea of the hive ecosystem.
Also... I'm pretty much against a sanction culture. I do feel we as a community need to be better educated about the DAO. Most of us are not even aware of it and that people get paid to do work.
Just wondering. Don't those who get paid have to post regular updates about what they've done with their proposals? I know several devs that consistently do that. That in my opinion is more reasonable than a centralized team. I think both Dan's have made clear that they really believe in a decentralized mindset.
I do want to know how many exchanges Justine has contacted. How many are currently interested and how many exchanges have listed Hive thanks to her work. Based on that we could make a fair assesment. Right now I don't even have a clue, so I can't really judge.
I'm definitely happy you are being critical and Wolf sounded the alarm bells and I'm looking forward to read responses from people that are a little closer to the fire.
Posted using Dapplr
It's not a centralised team! It's a decentralised team with some management and checks and balances. I never knew any of this about Justine, and I as a ' little un' my votes there are worthless but I'm stunned if they paid her 50k use for shilling us to exchanges! That's the sort of task that should be paid on results!
Thanks for the post. There has got to be a better way of having a say, or a vote on here that's not dependent on the size of your stake or it's no better than and current world scenario.
There is so much we don't know. The are curation trails right now with formerly well respected members of the community who haven't commented since the hard fork. They just autovote and power down. It so weird to see, because these are people I looked up to when I joined. And I would love to hear from them why. But I never was in the 'in-crowd', as far as I know, they either don't or know who I am and they'd never respond to a tag even if the post I wrote was actually inspired by or about one of them. And I don't even blame them, they probably never even say the notification.
At a certain point, I decided to just do what I love and not get involved with any drama, because without them speaking up on what's going on, you're just left in the dust guessing.
I left both @netuoso and @justineh a message on Twitter, because I don't like talking about stuff from just one perspective. As far as I know, they are both well respected members of the community. I don't know to what extend Justine was involved in all the Hive listings, because there have been a lot. It's just good faith that I assumes she had a stake in that. Same for Andrew and development. If someone now points out the basically that isn't the case, then it would be nice to know what is the truth.
Because @lordbutterfly, both @theycallmedan and @blocktrades still have @netuoso as a witness. So...
Why would a formalized core team go against the idea of HIVE?
Theres a reason why people organize themselves into more formal structures. Its far more efficient. They can achieve much more, much more cheaply.
Theres nothing about Hive that says: "We must tear down every structured system. No one can be in charge of anything!"
Core development requires united effort of many people. It cases like that having slackers and those that dont pull their weight is a drain on resources and burdens efficiency.
I agree with you that a centralized team could be more efficient. But that doesn't mean the same goal can't be achieved in een decentralized manner.
The witnesses aren't a centralized team and that's working great. The uptime since the fork has been so much better than for the last couple of years.
There are witnesses that are working harder than others and that will also still be the case with a centralized dev team.
While I agree with your focus from a business perspective I don't feel it has to be centralized and 'controlled' by someone who has a large stake.
If feel all the seperate efforts of the developers are already unified to some extend.
It's just that we need more accountability towards people receiving funds for proposals.
@netuoso was providing updates until two weeks ago. I don't know if he is not here due to personal reasons and I would like to give him the freedom to explain what is going on. If development has stopped but he still receives funds it is only fair that a proper solution is provided.
And yes, I think that the quality control for proposals has already improved since the fork, mainly because of people like yourself who don't feel it is fair for letting the dao pay out for underperformance. If we get more people to understand how proposals and the development of the eco system works, you will get more people holding the devs accountable for their work.
But tbh... most of us don't even have the slightest clue what is going on. We don't understand the technical side of hive.
Posted using Dapplr