Hive Whales Are Our VCs! .:. Late Night Blogging

In a way the DHF could work like VC's. If the big stake holders took their role more seriously. If you want to get funded, you need to make sure that the people who have the most stake in the game like your project and vote for it. They pay indirectly through the hive inflation. The problem I see is that there are too few big holders that can make sure that a project is funded... The distribution of hive power isn't decentralised enough for something like that to work I believe...

I think it's a good idea, but, again, it's the whales who decide what they want to have... because it's the same with the DHF, the projects that get the most votes from the whales are then selected. Well, in the development of Ecency, all the users did their best, and some whales also voted for the project...

VCs get a bad name, yet some of them, they do amazing work in the economy. The standard business model is to invest in a small product area where there is an incumbent and provide extra features to compete with the encumbunt.

Those are some good thoughts about the DHF.

DHF is one of the best sides of Hive blockchain to prove that community can decide what project to support on Hive. Such discussions are quite natural imho :)

InLEO

_{If you can't see this awesome banner, open this post InLeo}

It would be great to get some Whales together to act like VC's in a way, having accountability for each project would be good.

Even if they aren't VC's, there should be some sort of team overlooking the DHF and following up on projects and teams to ensure the money is being spent as intended. Also, having "skin in the game" would make sure that the main goal of most funded projects is to make money, or just turn a profit in general.

How does the DHF work exactly, when a project is done does a portion of profit get put back into it to be used on other developments? If not, it could be good for it to ensure there is regularly income growing the vault to be used on now ideas.

Realistically, an alternative to the DHF would be great too.

!discovery 30

This post was shared and voted inside the discord by the curators team of discovery-it
Join our Community and follow our Curation Trail
Discovery-it is also a Witness, vote for us here
Delegate to us for passive income. Check our 80% fee-back Program

---

I actually feel like the difference between DHF and VCs is very little or not obvious at all. It will be nice to have VCs here though. Maybe some much of whales and that’s all
I just hope they do well

Hive Whales Are Our VCs!

IMO, without having that counterbalance, we will have lousy projects being funded, breaking deadlines, and asking for more funds, without giving results... No motivation to finish the product, no repercussions if it's not finished...

You act like they had to buy their stake.
They are the early miners.

The problem with VCs is that at some point, they will want to get the profit from their investment. At least with the DHF, the focus is more on the people on Hive and we want the blockchain to succeed. I just think that Hive isn't the perfect solution but at least it's way better than the VC related stuff. I do think that everyone here should want Hive to succeed.

All these time I thought DHF would work like VCs but I am guessing many in other parts of the world aren't aware of how it works. This is why I've seen plenty comedic take on it haha.

IMO, a project should have an exact goal and also benefits to hive itself. Stakeholders must ensure that they reach that goal and also doing monthly audit.From what I've been seeing it's really less audit from others. There might be a buzz here and there but that's about it.

My approach might have not been lenient but I think when it comes to anything community funded like this, if they fail reaching a certain % of the goal, they need to return the money. The money could be used to fund other projects or initiatives. Hence creating a competitive environment and people would actually deliver.

!BEER

Hey @ph1102, here is a little bit of BEER from @eii for you. Enjoy it!

If you like BEER and want to support us please consider voting @louis.witness on HIVE and on HIVE Engine.

Like much crypto many whales were early adopters and got their stake without buying it.

The DHF, without some whale votes a project won't be funded. Like business though, I would like to see laid out deliverables with a proper cost estimate and implementation schedule. Then have a sliding scale to fine the project if deliverables are not forthcoming and project runs over budget, or have part of the DHF witheld until the successful completion of project.

The Valueplan is the same thing. Certain Valueplan account holders can do what they want.

VCs aren't all bad. They all want a return on their investment. When you play with crypto more or often than not it is because you want an investment, isn't that being a small VC.

It is what it is I guess.

Personally I think there should be a paid team to keep the Hive blockchain functional. Dapps should sort their own funding, as long as they are getting free money they just chug along. Hive needs to be slick and sexy to compete with other things.

Great night blog as usual and just shows Hive epitomises life, we all have so many varying opinions.

I think having different ways to fund a project will help speed up development purposes. Projects should have clear metrics on what they want to build or achieve. They sound be a better way to measure progress and fund or not fund accordingly.

Think the "internal" "whales" "Hive" made Hive what it is in the long run. We have many challenges. Many things have worked to get us where we are.

Pepe could use a whale fren. lol

I do like some of your ideas.

A loan instead of a gift, is a great way forward. Still, it needs a board of some sort to make sure the loan is going into the right hands and used for the purpose it was given (more about this later down below).

Perhaps some 'gifts' can also be given, but for a revenue share, or ownership in the project itself, like normal VCs demand. Those 'gifts' need to be supervised by a board. Some time ago I gave a solution for such a board. Electable peeps with a core job to make sure funding will only be given when milestones are reached. When not reached, funding will stop.

Added to that, any gift-like funding shall be limited in time. I mean, every company needs a revenue model. When they can't create one, they shall not continue to be funded.

Honestly, I don't understand why we never saw any changes tot he DHF, for as long as we are HIVE, the DHF system remained the same. And we all know, it doesn't work. Any idea why the whole mechanics isn't getting a big ass overhaul?

This is a really interesting subject man, you are right about what you are saying. We're on the same team and we should have the same objectives.

I have come to discover that one of the selling point of hive is the fact that it is unique in so many ways compared to other social media and the power of hive lies in it's uniqueness

Similarly, the small holders are waiting for the big wells to come up with the project so that their hard work of two or three years will pay off.

Hive made a little move today - not sure if it's the start of something bigger, we shall see. Hehe!
!LUV

I think you nailed on the last part of the text... spot on! And in my view, what the DHF needs is (in my view) another metric to demonstrate value. I will explain this...

Currently only investment in the platform makes it possible for those people to have a "saying" on the DHF, and that's ok (just ok, not perfect, in my view). There are many reasons I will not go through here, from security reasons and knowledge about the consequences of many other situations. But in the end, its like you said, if what DHF is supporting, the majority of the public don't want, how is that attractive or will make HIVE grow right? It's at least less visible to the community... which counts and can also be a marketing mechanism for further projects/businesses/etc.

And in this last point, is where I think there is need for another decentralized way of showing, what is valuable (to everyone). And this could be as simple as something about "number of votes", right? Well, yes and no... because unfortunately, a hive account is a very cheap (even if actually expensive in terms of blockchain terms and data), resource. So one can just adulterate that... hence it would not work!

What could perhaps work, is a way to weight that vs reputation. And that will probably tell us a bit more about what people that are interpreted to be "admired"/valued/voted users, would like to see. Sort of like an upvote/like of the proposals that are not directly influenced by the investment on the platform in terms of "money", but instead, in terms of "presence".

This means that influencers would have a bigger word, and even if they technically might or might not know more important things vs developers that know much better certain consequences, it would indirectly signal what is the community thinking about, and what are they whiling to support. And support here can have multiple ways, that normally conceptualizes in a form of value.

It could be, testers, big users, fame, politics, etc... any form.

Would that need to be factored into a trustless decision for the DHF to work?

Probably... but we would need to experiment to start with. Because two metrics contributing to the decision, would need a form of balance between them. But at least at start, they would influence decision I am guessing... even not counting towards the decentralized decision, when people actually vote for the proposal.

And why not to just approve proposals based on that model you may ask?

Well, its a balance. We don't want to transform technical need of supporting the technology into unvalued effort, and that needs developers whiling to support or get supported too, into further developing the infrastructure design and improvements of the blockchain. So I would say we need both metrics... probably even more, but I am just trying to find one simple one that could help change the way we see things.

This turned out to be bigger than I though, as usual 🤦‍♂️