I love actifit, and it really does a lot to benefit this platform. However you are treating this proposal like a transaction. You go into all the ways that you serve this platform, only to use that as leverage to support your overinflated budget.
Asking for an exact amount each day is kind of like using the platform like an ATM. I agree with the commenter who asked about self sustainability. Ideally actifit should be structured to eventually and one day support itself.
There are smoother ways to ask for financial support. Even just framing it as a goal instead of a request changes the tone. Seeing as actifit still has a lot of room for improvement, this might justify that budget to some degree. But either way this isn't the way to write a proposal. I am sorry if that is harsh.
Hi!
'I love actifit, and it really does a lot to benefit this platform." and then "You go into all the ways that you serve this platform, only to use that as leverage to support your overinflated budget" both are contradicting. That's how proposal format is and you can check it here DHF Proposal. Contributions to the platform must be explained as per format.
I don't think this project needs to request anything. Been following Actifit since 3 years and results are blockchain. There are 1000s of user testimonials and Actifit is one of the most used front-ends of Hive Blockchain-Hive Front end Stats
I agree with this point. Plans of Actifit as shared above are very much inline with this according to me. We need more features, development on Actifit which attracts more users to make it one of the best DAPPS. Hence I think this funding would be helpful for all M2E enthusiasts here on Hive Blockchain. And No one cannot use DHF like ATM, At any moment if voters remove their votes funding stops. You get funding continuously only when you deliver as committed. DHF is a full proof system. No one can tweak it.
Thank you @fitbee for your feedback, we love having you as well, and appreciate all feedback.
@travelfreako responded with a great clarification about how the DHF functions on hive, probably you do not have much details about its innerworkings, but this is how proposals are built on hive and how funding is dispatched. You need to set a daily budget, and funds are sent out as long as community is happy, is voting for the proposal and it's above threshold.
In terms of sustainability, we have been self-sustained for 4.5 years now. We applied for the DHF as our first time this year, as we want to push efforts even further and up the game for faster development and growth with more resources. In reality, our budget is really quite humble and barely covers what is needed to run things and grow at actifit. Not sure you're familiar with developers'/resources' costs, but they are through the roof. You can also check what other proposals' budgets are for a quick comparison check here.
We covered in our prior comment some of the items in play for self-sustainability, as well as others planned. We have additional plans beyond current scope for future growth, including the actifit DeFi concept and few others. We continuously brainstorm for fresh and innovative ideas, and community has been great help in sharing ideas and bringing actifit to where it is now.
I don't claim to know the inner workings. How could anyone from my perspective possibly see things in the same way? It is end user vs developer. But it might be useful in the future to consider all demographics when writing for the public. Your proposal is out there for anyone to read, with background in blockchain terminology or not.
I do appreciate your response and consideration on this topic, and for the value you continue to bring us. I am looking forward to learning more about this place under the surface, but at my own pace. I am not entirely sure the end user needs to know absolutely everything since we are mostly here to focus on and provide the content. Who else are you creating for? But at the same time we are supposed to have trust that everything is operating with integrity.
I think there is a divide here. Between the people who build the infrastructure, and those who choose to use it. I have noticed other examples of this across Hive and wish there were some way to bridge the two. Using terminology that the average user would not be able to understand without hundreds of hours of reading, is not favorable to future growth.
Actifit might be the pioneer dapp but it cannot truly become as widely adopted as mainstream options unless they pivot more favorably towards the average user - not someone more with more technical insight.
P.S - Average user does not equal average intelligence. I think it all comes down to not assuming that all of your readers have access to the information within those 'inner workings'.
We agree there is definitely room to improve! User feedback such as yours helps close the gap.
Hopefully we were able to clarify.
Thanks again, and happy holidays!
Happy holidays! Thanks for reading my thoughts and feedback :)