This has become ridiculous.
First with the Justine stupidity where you gave her 50k USD and now with Netuoso that already got payed god knows how many tens of thousands of dollars via his 2 proposals.
Justine took the money and quit HIVE, Netuoso hasnt said anything public to the criticism, hasnt posted in 11 days and his last action 6 hours ago was to send $2000 he got from the DAO to bittrex.
I have one question...
Why dont you listen?
Huh? Didnt i tell you what would happen when you dont have a supervising factor in place? Did i not tell you that this would happen when you fund CONTINUAL DEVELOPMENT instead of individual task completion.
Oh, but wer all the supervisors.
Shut up! NO WE ARE NOT!!!
- The community at large lacks the skill or knowledge to judge dev work.
- The devs that can are more often then not friends with the dev whose work is being judged and they dont want their friend to lose money or they have what id call "colleague solidarity" so they keep their mouths shut and focus on their own stuff.
I made a mock proposal yesterday over the Netty criticism, https://peakd.com/proposal/@lordbutterfly/vote-my-proposal, because most of you are fucking ridiculous.
Alright, yes, both Nettys proposals have FINALLY lost their funding. How late was that? How much money do you think the DAO lost that is now being dumped on Bittrex because there was no one to provide the feedback to investors or the community?
Ive been saying this from day one but it took therealwolf not getting his proposal funded to speak up against Netouso getting 2 funded and not delivering!
WE CANNOT DEPEND ON OTHER DEVS FEELING SCORNED FOR US TO GET FEEDBACK!
That is slow, inefficient and idiotic.
So this is what i propose and please do ignore it so we bleed some more $$$ from the DAO and the community gets to a point where they start perceiving all developers and the slack core as leeches that take as much as they can before they quit HIVE.
Someone like @blocktrades needs to organize a core dev team that will be funded by the DAO. Their work needs to be supervised, a weekly report of the work done provided on chain and the team needs to have a clear vision and direction.
Oh, you mean like Steemit.inc?
Yes, like Steemit.inc, BUT NOT SHIT.
You can organize weekly, monthly talks between devs but if youre not formally organized they have no responsibility to you, you cant enforce anything which is why you end up with situations like with Netty.
Maybe he is working on something but is late with commits, maybe he has been lazy all this time. Did he show up at his job today? Maybe he didnt. Maybe he didnt show up for a week, a month. Did he work 3 hours today or 3 hours this week? How much are you paying him per hour for his "CONTINUAL DEVELOPMENT"? Did he deliver at 80% or maybe at 20%.
Do we guess? Do we wait for dev friendships to break so someone speaks up?
NO.
Someone who is generally trusted and whose investment exceeds in a sufficient degree the necessary funding is the person to organize a core team in this way.
There are only 2 people i can think of for that. @theycallmedan and @blocktrades.
That's true, she took the money and went off haha, funny thing.
I will readjust my votes NOW and I hope big guys will do the same. I don't care what someone did 6 months ago...
No wonder we can't manage to get people interested. Frustrating as fuck.
Not to even mention the struggle @dapplr team had to go through in order to get their product funded...
The current features in place guarantee gaming, but no one cares. They won't until the pot is empty...
Huge changes are needed, which will require a long-term conversation on platform. I hope it happens, because currently We have an Oligarchy scratching backs. This goes against any claim of Decentralization and must change.
I think this will require changes to most of Hive algorithms, including but not limited to the rep and vote value features.
I bet the dust you've kicked up with this post will die down again to a deafening silence for a few months again. This happens everytime real issues that need addressing comes up.
Ive been kicking dust over this for a while now. I have pages of DMs and hundreds of dollars worth of downvotes to show for my efforts, but once enough people pick it up they wont be able to ignore it.
That's very true. I wish I had the HP to be an effective alli.
I’ll have to agree. Most people Think hive is just a platform not a protocol. Most people think there are Hive users not owners.
I’m gonna remove my proxy and start voting for Witnesses and DHF proposal myself and update 1st of every month.
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
So I'm not trying to take your thunder and shill my own post
I absolutely agree. Hive users shouldn't be expected to know the valuation of proposals, we should have a team of experts or "hive auditors" with no interest to the proposal to tell us. They would have their own reputation and be cycled to ensure minimal interest/corruption. There needs to be hive jobs paid by the DHF but first a dev needs to make a working front end to manage the roles.
I had an idea to make a proposal to hire another Howo. I never posted it but would like to share it with you. Are you in Bro chat or on discord?
I have a running list going of other strong hive users who see a huge material weakness in the current system. For me, it means I can't buy much more Hive because I think many new potential stakeholders would see this weakness.
"The devs that can are more often then not friends with the dev whose work is being judged and they dont want their friend to lose money or they have what id call "colleague solidarity" so they keep their mouths shut and focus on their own stuff." this is a sad truth, and way to really call it out! Love it, but these same devs need to understand that they are huge stakeholders too, we're not trying to "shit" on them but it's just an honest truth. They should be all in support of the proposal system.
It's the key to sustainability on hive and it's up to us to make the system not able to be exploited. We can't complain because people exploit the system rather we should encourage that, it shows us the weaknesses and gaps we need to close.
Why is the Blocktrades and Dan's responsibility to do stuff like this.
Can't you do it?
It's not their responsibility. @blocktrades simply has the knowledge required and @theycallmedan is a respected figure and heavily invested in HIVE and also has a team of devs for other tasks.
He simply suggests that their voice will be heard. And NO, he can't do it. Can you?
Eveybody can get the knownledge and assamble a team even Lord.
Getting respected and get ones voice heard is s more difficult thing to accomplish.
And no, my voice isn't heard :D
@mindtrap basically gave the answer.
Devs can be also funded by posting weekly reports. What I mean is to influence devs to make more moderate proposals and fill the gap with timesheets.
@theycallmedan and @blocktrades can supervise that or they can hire someone to do so. They have the community influence to support one's reports
The problem with that is: People are complacent voters. You would need some kind of way to assure repeated voting, maybe even put it in code where your vote can be cast automatically every week after the developer committed his report.
This is something that a front end could do by using a keychain active key if a box is checked.
In theory the community could come up with some requirements, i.e. any proposal being funded has to provide weekly updates otherwise the community unvotes the proposal.
@blocktrades already has a team of developers working all the time on the core blockchain software. The best thing is that all the work is done on BlockTrade's dime, which is a software company owned by Dan Notestein who ownes the @blocktrades account. (I don't know if there are other partners but Dan Notestein seems to be the CEO of that company).
@howo has been actively working on the core and he has been putting out regular updates as well. His proposal is funded as it should be.
Otherwise the DAO falls very, very short of its goals. A better stake distribution is vital in making it work. HIVE is still firmly in shitcoin territory as are nearly all cryptocurrencies. Only a better distribution will take it out of there.
Yeah but he cant continue funding the dev work by himself but what he can do is supervise the another team, guys that would usually be funded by the DAO. Instead of giving them money directly Notestein would get the money and redistribute it.
He already has talks with them and they coordinate things but he cant force them to actually do any work since they dont answer to him, rather to the community/investors and we are much more easily fooled..
This would assure the money is used more efficiently.
I thought they were his employees.
Sure, why not use the DAO to pay for this. If he put out a proposal, I'd vote on it and ask other people to do so.
He has his team and then there are howo, netouso and the rest of the devs
Thanks for speaking up
Community leaders could inform and educate their members about issues like this and work together to hash out action that would address the problems.
That could be a more decentralized approach.
You have made a very good point. I was not aware that Justine left HIVE. Saying that, I don't know the particulars. We saw DLive do the same thing some time back in our old neighborhood after being funded by the STEEMIT.COM ninja-mined accounts.
Although I am not a big fan of centralization, something does need to be done. Many HIVE folks are apathetic towards voting proposals from the DAO and also do not do the required research into the proposals and those submitting those proposals if they do vote. We have the same problem with block-producer/witness voting. At times it becomes more of a personality contest.
This topic effects all of the HIVE Community regardless of their amount of stake. Like most social constructs, 10% of folks make a difference the other 90% are just around for the ride and are too self-absorbed to even take an interest. Sadly, at times, I am one of those people (the 90%).
One of the first proposals I voted was the Return Proposal by @gtg. The proposal made sense to me ensuring that only proposals with a great deal of support would receive funding.
Some will remember The Foundation that was put together back when we were on STEEM that had community elected representatives to look at funding of proposals. Many of the board members were very active and trusted members of the STEEM Community. Would something like this work? I would suggest that any person that has a proposal, be it pending or funded, be unqualified for membership to such a DAO Regulatory Board/Foundation due to the possibility of there being an unethical conflict of interest.
I do not have all the answers and defer to those like yourself that are much more knowledgeable on these matters. I salute you for taking an active interest and having the courage to share your thoughts as well as possible solutions to an ongoing problem.
It's time to look at delegation for profit, too.
Imo.
Selling a vote piecemeal doesn't differ from selling it for month at a time.
It is still vote selling.
We forked those folks out, and all the while the new boss is the same as the old boss.
Why this blind spot exists, I don't know.
i think this one is the most important factor
This is the first post I’ve read in months and I completely agree. Something needs to change.
The fact that Justine just quit Hive says it all...
But to be honest, I consider Hive to be a lost cause.