One of the comments, placed by 
This brings up an interesting question: why was Leo able to generate interest and demand while Hive cannot?
Obviously, the answer to this question might hold some keys as to why Hive, overall, is languishing.
This might seem like something that is obvious but it is summed up in the comment.
Leo is focused on the user experience. That was the case from the beginning. All updates are done with the intention of making the time spend on Leofinance more enjoyable.
It starts with the development and filters through to the community. Feedback that is given to the core team is well received and, if applicable, implemented. Most of the features on the present site are from the suggestions of community members.
This is also something that translates to the main accounts active on that platform (influencers if you will). Leo has probably more engagement that any other interface on Hive. Why is that? Perhaps it is the change in the reward curve, but that is a debatable point.
Nevertheless, we now see a system whereby larger accounts are upvotes comments on a daily basis. The largest Whale on Leo puts out more than 100 upvotes like that per day, offering up more than 2 LEO each. Certainly there are a few "spammy" type comment but those are left unrewarded. People who are making a concerted effort especially newer people are benefited.
Now, we have to admit that it is a bit easier for Leofinance since it is a more targeted platform. Hive is a melting pot of all areas of interest. This makes the finding of content a bit more difficult. Nevertheless, with feeds and communities, we have ways of finding what mostly suits us.
Here is a subject that is a bit odd to mention when citing a post that details the road map for development. However, it is a vital piece of the puzzle.
Leofinance.io does not look like anything else on Hive. It is a UI built from the ground up. If we look at most of the tribes, they are still using the old Steemit.com clone.
The challenge here goes back to the first point. That UI was designed, what, almost 5 years ago? It has not changed much in that time. We know Steemit Inc did little to it.
Thus, it is encouraging to see Blocktrades mention the ability to alter Hive.blog in an easier way. This was badly overlooked. Obviously, with the fork in the Spring, there were other priorities, yet this being ignored has consequences.
Can anybody really proclaim that the old Steemit Inc interface is inspiring? Besides, what do we think of a UI that hasn't been updated in almost 5 years? Can you imagine if Amazon did that? Or Facebook? Or even Bo's Plumbing and Electrical?
Here again, we do get into a bit of a quandary. Leofinance can concentrate upon developing its application and building out its ecosystem. Those like Blocktrades who are involved in the core coding for the blockchain have a much wider scope of work and, thus, responsibility. Therefore, we have to give the benefit when it comes to prioritizing.
We can call this a lack of greed if we want.
There is little doubt from anyone who is actively involved with Leofinance where the loyalty lies. It is a team that demonstrated over the past year and a half that it is dedicated to building out a platform that can benefit all the users. The benefit on the individual level is not the main priority right now. Instead, the vision is on the longer term payout.
How does this contrast with Hive?
Based upon the comments and posts we saw over the last few years, it is the exact opposite. Certainly, Steemit Inc was a major problem before the hard fork. Many were limited in what could be done since that organization held all the cards. They were the developers and all had to wait on them.
That said, we still have many of the same witnesses. Whether it is reality or not, perception is often the only thing that matters.
Obviously, with the top 25 Witnesses, there are variances among all of them. That said, the perception by many is that these people are greedy and only care about themselves. The accusation is that they are using Hive as their own ATM. Not only do they make bank as a consensus witness, many also bilk the proposal system by getting funded while doing very little.
Whether this is accurate or not, it is the perception that is out there among many. Certainly, that is not every witness and many are deeply committed to doing all they can for Hive regardless of their personal gain, at least in the short-term.
The bottom line is that any organization, regardless of the endeavor or structure, is going to struggle without confidence.
The abovementioned comment shows where the focus commonly goes to in the crypto world. It also shows why most projects fail.
What is the basis of the comment? Token demand and how to incentive token holders. That is it.
Leofinance never concentrated on the price of the token. It was not relevant to the conversation. Instead, the focus was upon growth. For the past 9 months, there were a number of DM on discord about ways to keep the user base growing. Never was it what needs to be done to raise the demand for the token. In fact, while much of the development was taking place, the price of LEO was plummeting. It went from .30 HIVE down to about .025. Yet, through it all, never was that even looked at.
It is basic business to focus upon growth. That is what every entity needs. What is Hive doing in that area? It is flat. Is there any wonder why the price of the token is suffering?
The mention is on the success of the liquidity pool, again ignoring all that went into getting Leofinance to that point. Nevertheless if we look upon that, we can see the difference.
Many people put in more then 25,000 LEO into the LP. If we view that through the lens of the total circulation of roughly 5.5 million, we see the equivalent on Hive would be about 1.6 million. How would Hive's LP on Uniswap be if a few people put up 1.6 million HIVE?
Obviously that is a bit absurd but it does emphasize the point. Large amount of people's LEO holdings were powered down and put into the LP. There was a conscious effort to fund it by the core team. This likely provided confidence to smaller account who followed suit.
This is an idea that goes beyond just development although that is part of it. Everything that is being done on Leofinance, both by the core team and the community, is with the intention of making it bigger. This means we all build in our own way.
Not all are developers able to code sensational applications. However, we all can get involved to help build the different aspects of the community. Larger accounts do so by manually curating in an effort to help spread the tokens out. This makes newer members advocates for the platforms.
Even the smallest of accounts have things to contribute. Often it is a comment or an inspiring post. Either way, efforts are taking to embrace those people. In short, the "feel" of Leofinance is welcoming.
Can the same be said for Hive?
The users are the most important aspect. Again, this is business 101. Yet, on Hive, we do not see that idea coming forth. Until that happens, there will be challenges. Leofinance basically took a path that avoided that mess. Other tribes can follow.
As for the token prices, the fact that Leo is not monkeying around, trying to manipulate things is paying off big time. Certainly there are some "investors" but most people buying up Leo are the users themselves.
There are roughly 550 users on Leofinance, with a token circulation of about 5.5 million. Again, using the same percentage to HIVE, we would see an active user base of about 36,000. Hive is like a quarter of that.
Here we see the incentive. Leo users are buying up the token because they are having a great experience, have confidence in the core team, and are all working to build something bigger.
Leofinance is succeeding in spite of all that is taking place elsewhere. The team basically is putting its head down and getting to work.
One advantage to a system like Hive is that, as long as the blockchain is running, projects can excel. Again, there needs to be a certain level of core development that makes the blockchain stable and productive. However, outside of that, teams are free to operate as they wish.
So how does the path of Hive get changed?
Perhaps the easiest way is for some of the lessons from Leofinance start to filter through the Hive ecosystem. At this point, there is a model for all tribes to follow. How would thinks be around here if there were 5 or 6 tribes having similar success as Leo? To me, that is the Golden Nugget.
We see reports about the number of communities that are opened up each day. We have like 40-50 new ones a week. With the hundreds of communities that were started, isn't there a few in there that can gain some traction? Whether it is photography, natural medicine, sports, or any other topic, the process is not rocket science. If there is one developer who can add features to enhance the user experience, that is a great starting point.
Ethereum seems to be laying out a model for Hive to follow. Certainly, that is a well know blockchain yet the rage of 2020 was DeFi. That is what got the attention. Everything from Uniswap to Compound to Maker to SushiSwap. By virtue of their popularity, this all filtered through to Ethereum.
It is through the success of communities like Leofinance that eventually pushed Hive forward. However, to get to that point, we are going to require more than just a few communities pushing things forward.
Nevertheless, the future potential is great since the network effort can be explosive if a number of communities/projects start to step up. It becomes a numbers game at that point.
So what are your thoughts on this? Let us know in the comment section.
If you found this article informative, please give an upvote and rehive.
gif by 
