~~~ embed:1531460240788660225?s=20&t=s9m63fXuuoq9Zmkfeuhs0A twitter metadata:VGhleWNhbGxtZURhbl98fGh0dHBzOi8vdHdpdHRlci5jb20vVGhleWNhbGxtZURhbl8vc3RhdHVzLzE1MzE0NjAyNDA3ODg2NjAyMjU/cz0yMCZ0PXM5bTYzZlh1dW9xOVpta2ZldWhzMEF8 ~~~
Question from HiveTrending:
Talk about how not having a Dear Leader / community figure-head is a short term disadvantage and a long term advantage.
Hive doesn’t have a Do Kwon/Charles/Vitalik to worship.
▶️ 3Speak
This model on Hive completely disarms those who wish to control through means of manipulation, though they still manage to steer some over a cliff and to the valley below, since that is their way.
In all my years studying this I've yet to see one who's adamantly against the form of decentralization this chain offers able to communicate their displeasure utilizing facts, honesty, and/or integrity.
Hive doesn't need a figurehead and never did. It's more like driving down a highway. On the side of the road are several billboards displaying a variety of products and people, rather than one picture of a dictator and their propaganda showing up nonstop.
Sure, a city has a mayor, but nobody goes to that city to see the mayor. They go because there's an event; something to see or do. If someone wants to setup shop, that shop simply becomes just one of many, figureheads.
The figureheads in that sense and this setting are not at odds with one another or fighting to have more power or control over the other. If one shows up to see the music show, the hotels and restaurants and other attractions also make money, naturally. There's no need to have a mayor. That's just useless red tape that gets in the way.
But having a central figure helps people feel safe and comfortable lol - as if someone's going to be held responsible if things go south.
Term decentralization is used only on Twitter while in reality there's a couple of nodes governed by a single entity.
I thought crypto will evolve, at least a little from the last cycle.
I'm confident that Hive will make in the top 50 - one socmed app that goes Viral and boom.
Quite honestly I'd rather accumulate lol
Hive is getting bigger by the day as a result the possibility of failure gets smaller by the day which makes me confident and at ease of being here.
Lets not kid ourselves. We know what Mount Hivemore looks like. And yes, I can only assume that @themarkymark is actually the original Marky Mark.
structure > person
(thats a general view)
but in details... everything can be more complicated and vice versa. having a charismatic leader/enthusiast who spends their time promoting is a very valuable factor/resource. but his personal energy and resources are also exhaustible and finite (especially in conditions when he does not receive reciprocal food / reward, when "the game goes one way"), and the structure / pattern, which effectively reproduces itself with less energy, receives advantage ... these are my abstract opinions on this.
A single entity can have great influence and come up with the right solutions for a community to grow and a tribunal of leaders elected by the free market can as well. In practice, it's just always uncertain what the future will bring. Bad decisions can create good outcomes and not every good decision creates a happy end.
With a good grip on reality, it's important to understand that there's always a morally good way to create consent and that's what we should aim for to practice getting better at, even if sometimes it's just following a good leader within the community - like you are.
When I first learned about the DHF, about 16 months ago, my initial impression was that it has none of the benefits of centralization and very few, if any, of the benefits of decentralization.
The reason for this is that the DHF uses decentralized architecture to make centralized decisions. Every proposal (under the current system) is actually a centralized decision, made via a decentralized consensus mechanism.
Truly decentralized decisions are where everyone 'votes' with their sneakers and any 'proposals' that get enough sneaker votes are able to move forward, and those that aren't able, don't.
The biggest difference would be that a small proposal, under a truly decentralized decision-making paradigm, could get 100% funded merely by amassing a lot of small votes (i.e. even with no whale votes). The downside would be that a whale account could unilaterally self-vote their own shrewdly-sized proposals with zero community support. As such, I am not advocating for such a system.
Instead, the system I would advocate for is where a sizable chunk of the DHF is put into the hands of 3 individuals (i.e. 3 members of the community who are forward-looking and fully trusted by the rest of the community) and where those 3 'Temporary Figureheads' (TFs) are allowed to spend those funds as they see fit. It could be set up either as a majority vote (i.e. 2 of the 3 must concur for each expenditure) or unanimous vote.
My suggestion would be to make a significant portion of the daily DHF funding available to those TFs (e.g. 10% or more), on an ongoing basis, with the expectation that no more than a certain amount remain in the account at any given point in time. Here is an example:
Obviously, a regular accounting of how the funds are being spent would be required.
$15k per day would allow for some serious development (and marketing) activity. My suggestion for the first 'project' would be for someone to update all the various Hive dev tutorials and other resources to make it easier for someone to onboard as a new developer. I taught a new class this past semester, Blockchain Programming & Development, that focused specifically on Hive. However, many of the tutorials at https://developers.hive.io/tutorials/ were out of date and didn't work as described.
Similarly, one of my students and I have spent a couple weeks (to no avail) trying to figure out how to automate sending encrypted messages via Hive. (We still need help with this -- if someone is available to step us through the process, please contact me via discord: trostparadox#8559.)
One of my colleagues (the head of the Management department at Oklahoma State University) is planning to offer a new management course on Blockchain in the fall. He is starting from scratch. Another worthy 'project' would be development of some resources that would help faculty like him and me teach new Blockchain-focused courses. This would be a good way to make sure Hive gets some much-needed attention at the university level.
Thanks for choosing my topic! Appreciate your perspective on this.
I suggested this because I saw some discussion around the community about how people are drawn to charismatic leaders.
When someone says decentralization it primarily means political decentralization in general. But economically, the resultant of liberalism could be capitalism, but hey capitalism is not bad as long as it is grounded and governed with decentralized governance, let's take the case of Hive.
There is a certain inflationary reward that is being produced to reward the content creator. If you really want to achieve political decentralization, then you can either buy HP and participate, if not then keep building your HP and collaborate to become a part of the political decentralization.
If you just want to become a product without caring for political decentralization then don't blame the architecture, it is you who chose to liquidate the HBD or HIVE earned, notwithstanding your own personal situation; therefore Hive and the similar crypto ecosystem do offer those opportunities to all, which is fair and square for all. Political decentralization is responsibility for all unless the users choose to be a product themselves.
The stupidest form of community is to have "leaders". Only the weak bow to authority. 😎
I thought Hive's figurehead was you to be honest 😁
The idea of a self-managed community, horizontally, where no one is above the other is beautiful.
In the short term it may not seem so advantageous, however, progressively and naturally an order is achieved that allows the common growth (of all its participants), each bee in the hive knows that it has its own task and this helps the whole structure to subsist.
If one of the bees is absent, the honeycomb or commune continues to move forward.
If there is a leader, and he fails in some action or disappears, the commune will die.
Nice freestyle.
It's certainly an interesting topic. I'm not a firm believer in the concept that blockchain fixes everything. Some centralised aspects of our life operate just fine as they are and would be in a shambles if they were to be left up to a decentralised structure to guarantee functionality and efficiency.
The beauty of Bitcoin is the fact that Satoshi left it to mature all by itself. Decentralised money is far too tricky and political to have a CEO calling shots from above.
Certain projects can benefit however from a decentralised structure, such as social media and remunerating content creators for their honest work. As long as humans are involved in these networks though, leaders (and followers) will naturally emerge. No amount of code can alter human nature. Regardless of the leadership, as long as a project's community feels engaged with their participation, their motivation remains intrinsic and the consensus is guaranteed, the project should survive. Not all blockchain projects tick these boxes though and when the monetary incentives fade away though, so too will community participation. It's at this moment that the more centralised blockchains will fall back on their leaders for support.
Hive is also resistant to the point if the creator starts hating the own product.
Happens not that rare and always damages the product.
It's simply impossible on hive :)
Same effect if the creator leaves.