Hey @lordbutterfly,

Thank you for raising a very interesting topic and approaching it in such a friendly manner, since many would take extremes with DHF, either completely with or completely against.
I'll respond here as a dev who's been in the industry for 20+ years, but also as the main guys behind Acitifit, particularly as we are getting funded at the moment via DHF.

• First and foremost, yes i agree there are many great devs around currently working and helping out grow hive and ecosystem. We are proud to (hopefully be considered) as part of such devs.
• Second, in terms of active DHF proposals, our perspective towards tracking whether the proposal is justified or not, is based on the value proposition of the DHF proposal itself and whether it meets its objectives or not. This can be tackled via a few basic angles:
  • one: Is the project providing continuous updates? are they relevant to the initial proposal and the overall big picture?
  • two: If the project is open source (which we hope they are), are they making continuous and consistent commits/PRs to their projects? is the development really happening?
  • three: Is the payment requested justified considering the size of the team and the effort required?

There has unfortunately been abuse in the past as you highlighted, yet we believe a lot of great proposals are currently funded which are bringing value to Hive. We would like to comment a bit about our own proposal for transparency, in light of our perspectives above, particularly as I noticed a comment by @bitcoinflood below:

• In terms of updates, we have been giving out continuous, weekly or monthly updates on all our Actifit work, including dev or marketing, even before our proposal got funded.

• Point two which is github commits, we have been completely open source since day one, and have been very much consistent in our work via github where our project resides. Below is a screenshot of our commits throughout last year for further transparency (note that those do not include the iOS updates as our dev was pushing updates to a private repo, we will push those out publicly soon)
  

• In terms of the payment being justified, we do believe our ask is pretty much on the lower end, considering how much devs get normally paid and the cost we have at hand. Our Acitift team is currently at around 12 resources. Our work is only partially funded by DHF, as we requested 230 HBD daily, otherwise we would have asked for much higher numbers. Our DHF clearly states we run infrastructure for hive, hive-engine, 3speak, and many other hive collabs amounting up to 20+ servers. So the funding we have currently coming via DHF helps us increase our dev capacity, cover some of our cost, and increase our marketing and social effort. You probably are aware Actifit has been around for 5+ years, and this year was the first to have requested for some DHF funding, as we wanted the assistance to grow while avoiding the traditional VC route, and the best way was leveraging our DHF decentralized route, especially that Actifit has expanded its focus not only to provide fitness-focused dapp service, but to cover further collabs across hive and provide a full front end and infrastructure service to help our whole ecosystem grow. Our DHF proposal and updates throughout the year are clear regarding this.

So in a nutshell, we believe those 3 perspectives can be quite helpful in assessing a project's DHF proposal, but also that we as Actifit have been putting in the work and doing our best to adhere to them.
A Thank you is due to our 770+ DHF supporters to whom we are very grateful for believing in our work over the years, and that we will continue to deliver.