Two Trust Components

There are two trust components to a DHF proposal: integrity and value. Both should be present beyond a shadow of a doubt for a proposal to be funded.

This is because there are two distinct points of consideration in any proposal. One is the proposal itself and what it entails. The other is the person who proposed it.

Integrity

• does the requester make a genuine effort to reach out to others, collaborate and donate their time and efforts to Hive?
• does the requester keep in touch with a wide range of people, not just with those who may be of use to them, and is part of the Hive ecosystem?
• does the requester understand how Hive works?
• does the requester make it a habit to thank those who have helped or supported them, including those who have given them valuable insight or ideas?
• is the requester actually qualified to deliver the service or product? (ie. number of years in the industry + education + previous projects)
• is the hourly wage the requester is assigning to themselves equal of the hourly wage they are entitled to if formally employed by a company? (ie. nowhere is the salary of a junior developer $200/hr)
• has the requester ever scammed or exploited on Hive or formerly on Steem?

Value

• is the proposal responsible? (ie. the service won't cause damage to Hive or adversely affect it)
• are the amounts requested realistic?
• is there a detailed breakdown of what's required?
• is the amount of HBD requested the same as the amount described?
• does the proposal round up or round down?
• is there any discussion about what will be done with any unused or overpaid funds due to rounding up?
• are there similar proposals by more established, verified service providers?
• if the code is open source, is the code of good quality or does it look like something hacked together by an amateur and is full of bugs?
• is the requested amount artificially-amplified for open sourcing the code?
• what is the expected longevity or utility of the funded project or product?

Privileged Insiders vs Widely-Trusted Individuals

There is a very big difference between privileged insiders and people who are widely-trusted.

It is both incorrect and naive to assume that everyone who gets their proposal highly considered or approved has some sort of a privileged access to an inner circle of stakeholders. This is very simple to refute by the same virtue that it is very simple to believe: stakeholders care about their money. The higher their stake, the more they care. Stakeholders are thus uninterested in anything that may be detrimental to their stake and its growth, particularly as they have made a time-locked investment. Voting on proposals made by random people they happened to interact with is not conducive to the growth of their stake and, should the project negatively affect Hive in any way, may actually cause its value to decline. Let's simplify this. You wouldn't trust your best friend to perform surgery on you if they're a plumber by trade, would you?

Widely-trusted individuals are another matter. They have proven themselves, their integrity, their dedication and their capability time and time again to a wide variety of people in the Hive ecosystem. They have dedicated their time, have done helpful things that they never bragged about publicly, have donated their efforts and resources, have supported projects without remuneration, have made a real effort to learn everything they could about Hive, and have generally been excellent team mates. If you have a problem, you feel comfortable approaching them for help. They're honest even if what they're saying isn't what you want to hear. Minnows and whales alike trust them. Those are the people whose proposals are ideal to get funded because the supporters can feel confident in knowing the person will deliver and has the interests of fellow users and the Hive ecosystem at heart.

When you go and vote for a DHF proposal there are some you read through and support as a no-brainer and some where you get your calculator out, run a background check that makes you feel like you're a cop, and then sit there thinking it over. Amplify that by the action of every voter and that's the difference between those two categories right there.

The DHF is Not ...

It is the unfortunate reality that many people on Hive are either underemployed or lack a way to generate income to live on with any level of comfort. Many of those working are trapped in jobs they want to get out of. There is a real draw to being a successful staple of the cryptosphere and to building a business. Everyone can relate and sympathize. That being said ...

The DHF is not the "Angel Investor" for your startup business. It is not meant to take wild chances. It is for responsible funding. Its goal is to support the development and expansion of the Hive ecosystem but the success of the proposal has to be evident and verifiable.

The DHF is also not a vendor procurement and payment service. This isn't where vendors upload proposals for services and the lowest bid wins. We're not a centralized company and we don't hire external agencies for basic tasks. Attempting to extract large amounts from the DHF to supplement your corporate sales of whatever service you offer is not appropriate.

Perspective

This post is an opinion piece. There are two proposals I'm a part of that are currently unfunded on the DHF due to lack of support. One is my own for Spaminator. One is written by my partners for BRO SGN. Both are for small amounts relative to other proposals. Therefore I am not presenting this as someone who is being paid out of the DHF. I'm presenting my thoughts as a regular Hive user, developer, witness and minor stakeholder. I am also presenting this as someone who genuinely cares about the success of the Hive ecosystem as a whole, not just my own piece of it.

---

Like what we're doing? Support @guiltyparties as a Witness.