This was supposed to be a comment, hence why the post rewards of this post are burnt.
Today I left a reply to 
So, here's the reply I left on his post. For context, you can check his most recent post, but I basically outline every comment he made, and I reply to it, so no need to go read it (but you're most welcome to do so).
LeoFinance is not dead, it is rebranding.
LeoFinance is rebranding, and you can take a look at the post right here.
First of all, thank you for spreading the word about the DHF. Every Blockchain should have as many users involved in governance as they can. Second, thank you for spreading the Leo Proposal, we definitely need more votes.
Now let's get to it:
This is what it demanded.
Leo doesn't demand for anything. As any other proposal, Leo asks for funding and it is up to the community to decide if they support the it or not.
You've chosen your wording carefully to pain Leo as a bad actor by saying we demand when in reality we do the same as any other proposal.
If funded, yes from you. Why from you? Because you are the owner of DHF as a stakeholder.
All of the proposals are funded by the community. The way you frame this is to give attention to one proposal, when the reality is that the Leo proposal - if funded by September 1 - would only account for 10% of the total DHF.
This would be the only proposal in the pool that focuses on Marketing and bringing more users to our blockchain, instead of development aimed the existing userbase.
A 10% of any budget allocated for Marketing is healthy. Every company, project, blockchain or similar needs marketing to thrive no matter the circumstances.
Marketing and onboarding proposal from HIVE DHF, which doesn't even carry Hive LOGO.
Leo Finance is built on the Hive Blockchain and we are very open and public about it - you should watch the AMAs and videos we put out, we always mention Hive as the base Layer. But for the sake of the conversation, please show me where the Hive blockchain logo is on any of these Hive Dapp Logos:
Again, you are framing a factto accommodate to strengthen your statement.
The current top suggestion is BLURT :)
By the way, Trumpman is voting for the Leo proposal.
The only reason it is the "top suggestion" is because you gave it a 100% vote - when you say you care about proper reward allocation when it fits your narrative. And you know, we leave it there at the top because everyone knows he's joking, and everyone in the Leo community knows how Trumpman is and we like him like that.
It is too expensive, unnecesssary and untimely, and will NOT deliver any of its promises
It's not expensive. At a $25 CAC, it is extremely competitive. CAC (customer acquisition cost) is measured by how much a company has to spend to get a new user. In this case, it doesn't matter the amount of the proposal, what matters is the CAC.
For context, take a look at these two images:
It is untimely
The bearmarket is the perfect time to attract new users looking for opportunities to grow. Plenty of projects and spaces are dying and those who invest in marketing and promotion will hit harder during the bullrun, because they built a name and a community during the bear market.
During a bullrun, the marketing space will be filled with paid articles, advertisements, influencers shilling shitcoins, new projects with new money etc. We will be actively competing with every single crypto company, project and blockchain to attract the same users. Right now the Ad Space is bleeding, prices are cheap and we would be competing with just a few projects for the attention of the users.
Oh, and during a bullrun, Hive has proven it needs little marketing, users rush back to hive during the bulls and people are eagerly looking for projects and they will leave after the bulls. It is the bear market when real, organic, retentive growth can be achieved. A user onboarded and retained during the bears is a user who will stick through many cycles.
It is unnecessary
The growth of the Hive blockchain cares to disagree. We need to grow, we need to onboard more users.
Leo doesn't carry the banner of Hive. They even have their own token.
This is normal for any crypto project and company to do, there are several reasons for this but you know them, you just want to frame that having an own token automatically makes a project anti-hive. 99% of crypto projects, no matter their base layer, have their own token. Again cherry picking and framing something to help your narrative.
There are plenty of reasons to point to them being extractors of Hive.
And yet you point to none, you just appeal to your authority and hope people believe this because you say so.
Admitting what they get out of it would be a hard sell to Hive.
We have already pointed this: By growing the hive pie, everyone other dapp on hive wins. Will Leo get more users? Sure, as every other dapp.
The fact that we have prepared a proper onboarding and tutorial process where we showcase every hive dapp so that the user can try them all out, should be enough statement.
But we've mentioned this, you just decide to ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative of this post.
None of the leo holders own any meaningful amount of staked hive.
You didn't even do some research before stating this. There are have plenty of Leo holders that have a considerable Hive Stake, and all of our users want Hive and Leo to thrive, because they understand that if one does, the other one benefits.
The fundamental premise of founding LEO community was a mini-rebellion against large hive stakeholders, and forming their own token. They have openly said that they hated hive for years.
This is just hilarious. If by creating a community and a token the project is rebelling against the Layer 1, then virtually 99% of crypto projects are a rebellion to their base layer.
And no, check any AMA posted on 
Don't get me wrong, they have done plenty of projects, all very opportunistic. I was involved in quite a few.
This is where it all comes from. You lost money from CUB and you've made it your personal quarrel, and made Leo your enemy.
Founders do not hold any meaningful amount of hive.
Khal has plenty of Hive assets and will dox these wallets to a community member because he doesn't feel comfortable publicly sharing this - as is a crypto foundation, the right to remain anonymous or to not make holdings public.
You know this because it was shared in Mattermost but again you decide to state things as facts because it fits your narrative.
Paying people to get in a platform never worked for us, We have tried all these technique the proposal have mentioned before and they have all failed in the past.
We are not planning to lure people with the promise of money, this has never worked in the past and I doubt it will work in the future. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes, but I think we all agree we don't want to keep trying the strategy of alluring users with money that will leave once that money stops coming.
Why me? Why am I writing this? Am I a good person?...
This is just a Fallacy. You appeal to your authority and your holdings, trying to convince people about your statements without providing arguments. And by appealing to your persona, you try to take away attention from your actual post - which is contradictory, you'd think you make a post to bring your statements out to the public and yet, your final words attempt to undermine those statements and just make people rely on your authority.
They will be most likely needy. They will take the money and run. This is a certainty.
This proposal is not aiming to attract investors. It is aiming to attract users. Will some cash out? Sure. Will some power up? Definitely.
Assessing this proposal with parameters out of its scope just to have a negative statement about it is not the way to do so. As stated above, ValuePlan aims to onboard investors, the Leo proposal aims to onboard users. (I'm already prepared for a reply in the form of "too long wall text, I don't have time for this, I've stated my facts and I will make this proposal go unfunded") Investors need to see a thriving ecosystem, not a stagnant one as some could say it is right now.
You have personal issues with Leo, I get it, but the fact that you are campaigning so hard against this proposal without even wanting to see the results this marketing could bring, and that you prefer to try to shut it down before it even commences, speaks more about your personal views than about Leo.
With this post, all you are saying is "I'd rather see Hive not get adopted, than to see Leo spearheading the adoption." As a top stakeholder, it baffles me you put your personal issues against Leo above what you know is a good proposal for Hive.
You prefer to see the chain remain the way it is, with 10k users, than to see Leo double the size of the chain.
You don't have a problem with the proposal, you have a problem with Leo.
Good thing we're working on making this as transparent, clear and solve any concerns and arguments - not statements - against it.
Despite our personal issues that you began when we disagreed in a Covid matter, I believe you truly want what's best for Hive in general terms, I just think your assessment of this proposal is incorrect and driven by personal issues, so I hope you reconsider your stance here.
As a sidenote, I want to encourage everyone on Hive to get involved in the DHF - The Hive Governance protocol.
Getting involved helps Hive remain healthy and decentralized, so no matter what your stance is on any of the proposals, get involved!
Lastly, if you scroll all the way down on Peakd, or to the middle on Ecency, you will find the Leo proposal. If you like it, give it a vote!
