A while ago, I was reading one of the blogs on the trending page, and it was about a controversial topic right now, SpendHBD, or I should say the alleged misuse of it. Because I genuinely believe there is nothing wrong with the SpendHBD project itself. In fact, it is a good way to introduce HBD, or Hive, to the masses. I say this because not everyone is meant for Hive, some people simply do not blog or engage in social media.
SpendHBD creates an avenue for business owners and their customers to interact with the Hive blockchain through spending HBD at establishments, and in return, both the business owner and the customer receive cashback for going through the process. That, in my opinion, is a really good initiative.
However, every now and then, a post shows up on Hive that isn’t trying to entertain, farm engagement, or ride the current narrative. It’s the kind of post that forces the community to slow down and ask an uncomfortable question:
Are we building real adoption… or are we accidentally building crypto theater?
Created using Sora
The issue being discussed revolves around SpendHBD onboarding activities in Aba, Abia State, Nigeria, and it blends two controversies that feed into one bigger theme, trust.
On Hive, trust is everything. Not because we’re centralized, we’re not, but because we operate on social reputation. There’s no HR department, no compliance team, and no official “Hive customer service.” When people are given informal authority as guides, onboarders, or community leaders, the system works beautifully, until it doesn’t.
And the moment it doesn’t, we get a reminder of something I’ve said before, Hive’s culture has never been about pretending things are perfect. People on this chain critique weak onboarding, call out confusing UX, and push for simpler tools because they care.
This is one of those moments.
The original post raises two major accusations.
In the post, the author claims they shared a campus onboarding idea privately with a trusted guide, then later saw a very similar idea announced publicly, followed by a refusal to collaborate.
I’ll be honest, this is the type of allegation that’s emotionally understandable, but also one of the hardest to prove cleanly. We are in a decentralized space where ideas are replicated, whether we like it or not. This is why we see multiple similar projects popping up every now and then. At the end of the day, what matters more is not who thought of the idea first, but how effective the implementation is.
“University onboarding” isn’t exactly a rare concept. I’ve heard it discussed and even implemented before by several communities on Hive. In fact, if you rewatch some of the older HiveFest panel discussions, I believe it was even mentioned as one of the strategies explored by the DBuzz community. This is an idea that almost anyone in Web3 could arrive at.
That said, even if it’s hard to prove, it still exposes something real, power imbalance. When someone needs a vouch or approval to participate, and the gatekeeper also runs projects, it creates an environment where suspicion can grow easily.
This is the part of the post that really caught my attention.
The author visited multiple businesses listed as HBD-accepting merchants and reported patterns such as:
If true, this goes beyond messy onboarding. It represents a drift away from what SpendHBD is supposed to stand for.
Because the goal isn’t to “make it look like people spent HBD.”
The goal is to create merchants that can independently accept, hold, and use HBD, without the onboarder present.
When the guide becomes the permanent translator, custodian, and converter, the merchant isn’t truly onboarded. Instead, the merchant is participating in a centralized system where middlemen make it appear that onboarding is effective, and that is something I personally disagree with.
That’s where things become dangerous, not just ethically, but reputationally.
Hive is already fighting a difficult battle with onboarding and retention. New users struggle with keys, unfamiliar terms, and a confusing early experience, and many leave before they ever feel what Hive can truly offer.
Now imagine how fragile this becomes when real-world merchants are brought in without crystal-clear consent and proper self-custody.
If a merchant later says, “I didn’t authorize this,” or “I didn’t understand what I was joining,” it doesn’t matter how good the intention was. The damage spreads outward.
And in crypto, perception almost always moves faster than truth.
I’m not interested in drama. I’m more interested in systems that prevent this from happening again, even when good people are involved.
Here are a few practical fixes I would love to see:
Because here’s the truth, adoption built on shortcuts doesn’t compound. It collapses the moment the shortcut disappears.
Hive keeps building, without hype, without founders doing countdown timers, and without pretending we’re already “mainstream.”
But to grow into what we say we are, we need the courage to tighten our standards, especially when real-world commerce is involved.
Not to punish people.
But to protect the mission.
