Currently, the threshold for the return proposal is set at roughly 60m HP (pretty much double the usual level). There are roughly 180m HIVE powered up, which means at least 33% of all HP needs to vote on a DHF proposal to pass it.
The only DHF proposal currently funded is the one from Ecency. It's likely others will be pushed over the line... But not the one that triggered this reaction, again. I hope this is a tactics to negotiate from a stronger position, otherwise, this doesn't look good at all.
It isn't even 33%. There are inactive stakeholders on HIVE (including big ones), and those who don't vote on DHF proposals on principle, like the biggest HIVE stakeholder, @freedom. If we only remove his stake from the equation (13.7m HP), we jump to over 36% of ALL staked HIVE needed to vote on a proposal to pass it.
If it makes any difference, SPS DAO has a threshold of 10% (less than 1/3 of what the DHF has now) of ALL staked SPS voting both for and against a SPS DAO proposal to pass it (besides the condition to have 66% in favor, which isn't always easy to reach without a lot of behind the scenes politics).
It is interesting that the model without downvotes on proposals was chosen at the beginning, firstly because Blocktrades knew it from a different project and it was easier to adapt it to the legacy chain, and secondly because it was thought that downvotes will lead to internal fights. Well, it doesn't seem like the DHF is so popular on Hive, except among people getting funding, which aren't many, and now, are practically almost none.
It took the votes of a few major whales to fund a proposal when the funding barrier was in the mid-30s millions of HP. Let's see how it goes now with a 60m threshold...
In my opinion, the system is broken. It leads to more and more centralization (major whales having ALL the power on the DHF), and less transparency. You can't know the reason why someone voting on the return proposal votes on it (I used to do it, but at these levels, forget about it!), but it would be clearer if one had to downvote a proposal if they were against it. And you wouldn't have to stop funding on ALL proposals (VSC, Hive Keychain, and the like), because you have something against one particular proposal. Just downvote that proposal to the ground and assume that vote, if that's what you want and if what you think is the best. So... this is one of many changes that should be made to the DHF...
Otherwise, why are we on Hive? Censorship resistance, decentralization... Words, if they don't have substance.
Sorry, I got a bit carried away, and it has nothing to do with my support of the said proposal. At least, I hope so.
In fact, I do believe they should also find a way to drive some value directly to HIVE from the existing and potential future partnerships, on an ongoing basis. Otherwise, we risk that the market dictates a one-way flow of capital/value, and it might not be the way we want it.
Posted Using INLEO
