Funding model feasibility review to replace the antiquated on-chain voting model
Scope and guidelines documentation
DHF proposal or similar (depending on outcome of 1)
It's a difficult question as to how a project the size of Hivewatchers should be funded. The unfortunate reality is that both members of Hivewatchers must put in at least 20 hours a week for the project to operate. That includes processing reports, liaising with the community, answering chat, conducting investigations, management duties, helping people, and everything else that goes into it. While many hours get donated, not all can be.
So far we've done a review of how the original funding model was established, much of it being before both of our time, and what were the original ideas behind it. A lot of relevant discussion was unfortunately lost when Steemit Inc closed off their Slack to all users that were also on Hive. We're retracing our footsteps as a project in this regard and evaluating what had transpired and what we can learn going forward.
We are also examining the feasibility of various funding models. One is obviously the DHF. Another one is a blended approach as curation of ourselves is largely outside of our control. There will be a post regarding this in the future where we discuss it in detail upon completion of the project.
The new documentation for Hivewatchers must be written as we're on a new blockchain now and how the community in general has evolved. What will happen in the near future is that these will be drafted and presented on Github. You will see a post announcing this.
One reason for keeping the first draft off chain is to allow for unbiased feedback. Everyone, including users who are blacklisted, are welcome to provide their feedback in Github. We've openly welcomed feedback for a long time now.
Another reason is to allow for easy to track editing and changes, especially minor changes. It would also eventually allow us to build up a set of translations and informational repositories that can be clearly presented. Of course we'll adequately document on chain as well once we have something that's coherent and acceptable.
There isn't much to say here at this point as step 1 and 2 must be complete before we can go to step 3.
In regards to feedback in general: We treat all users equally and we don't aim for the most vocal and "influential" users to overshadow the voices of those who are lesser known. Just because someone who is widely supported presented a position, it does not mean that their opinion will be held in higher regard than someone who is new but has excellent ideas for a gap they identified.
Everyone should always provide feedback. We've asked for it before but unfortunately the last time no one provided it. We want feedback that's honest, critical and actionable.
That being said, we are not going to act on changes that benefit a small group or one or two dapps. We are here for the entire Hive ecosystem. That means everyone.
Images by thepeakstudio.
Note: Please report all abuse through the web form.
