Although the real power to make changes on Hive rests with the first 21 witnesses, who decide based on their individual beliefs or interests, that doesn't mean the rest of us users can't get involved in governance issues. Beyond simply voting for witnesses, we can discuss and promote changes that improve the blockchain.
And this is where I bring up some ideas I want to share, hoping to spark debate and the possible implementation of some of them.
Most users never worry about voting for witnesses and proposals, inflation, staking, etc. One way to engage them, make them feel part of the network and not just see it as a mining mechanism, and perhaps reduce Hive's inflation, would be to establish a mandatory voting rule on Hive.
To explain, this is a widely established measure around the world; many countries have mandatory voting rules in national elections. Therefore, the experience and precedents are there.
How would it work? Simply put, a rule is introduced stating that after six months or a year of account creation, users who haven't cast a valid vote for at least three witnesses (10% of the 30 allowed votes) will have their ability to earn rewards for curation, authoring, or interest in HBD Savings and HP paused.
While many would cast random votes or use the proxy function (although this option could strengthen communities influence), there will be those who genuinely become interested in these aspects of Hive, seeing the network as more than just a website to earn money, but as a place to build community and foster decentralization and freedom.
Given the Return Proposal of the Decentralized Fund (DHF), it could be made mandatory to at least vote for a DHF proposal.
The decentralized fund has its supporters and detractors, and assuming its complete elimination is unlikely, I'm putting forward a middle-ground proposal. Perhaps it's been discussed before, but I'm going to try to revive this debate.
Why not burn all the remaining DHF funds stemming from the Ninja Mine case or funds associated with Steem's bad practices?
By leaving the DHF solely with user-donated funds, not only would the proposal selection criteria be more rigorous, but the proposals themselves should also be more effective. Many Hive projects lack sustainability, and due to DHF funding, they have little incentive to pursue it.
In this sense, the DHF would be like the cow that needs to be thrown off the cliff to drive innovation and encourage DApps to adopt a sustainable financial model (preferably by attracting external capital to the blockchain).
Currently, posts where authors choose to burn rewards only burn the author's own rewards. This should be changed so that all rewards for these types of posts are burned. In other words, if a curator votes on that type of post, they are agreeing to burn through their curation rewards. This eliminates the possibility of curators using these types of posts as a token farming strategy.
These are some ideas I've come up with; there are others I'm still mulling over. I believe these are simple, not overly invasive, and easy-to-implement changes that could greatly benefit Hive as an ecosystem. It is now up to the community to debate and give their opinion on this so that it reaches the sight, ears and consideration of the Hive witnesses who are the ones who have the power to implement them or not.
