No mention of retaining the SINMS for the DAO in blocktrades' original post.
"Does the community have the resources to launch a blockchain?
Yes, we do. It’s actually much easier for us to launch a chain, because of the many lessons we’ve had operating the Steem blockchain. And as far as financial resources go, several prominent Steem stakeholders have privately offered both computing resources and significant financial support, including my own company, BlockTrades. Even at this early stage, I’m utterly convinced we have sufficient support to launch and develop this new blockchain."
If there's money on offer, people will take it. I'd much rather see witnesses writing and reviewing code. If total supply were lower, and price higher, witness rewards could cover development costs, particularly as there's no clear, urgent path forward after SMT's, which is already coded.
Blockchains need funding to continue development, but if there's consensus to burn stake in the proposal system which got there as part of the Steemit ninja-mined stake, that can be discussed also. The ninja-mined stake was sold as stake to be used for development and promotion of the chain, so I see no contradiction putting it in the proposal system. It's the most accurate thing to do based on the commitments made for almost four years now, IMO.
All good arguments, but not even hinted at in blocktrades' original post.
I don't want the price to languish under 800,000 tokens a month in programmatic selling, just so the guy with grandiose promises and the right friends, can take his sweet time coding the flavour of the day on the base layer.
We've been there. You pay me $100,000 year to find Waldo, I'm never going to find him. All you'll get is poorer.
It's a silly game and I thought we'd stopped playing it.
Whether or not we stopped playing it will be determined by what proposals get funded and which ones don't which is decided not by an individual (as was the case with Ned), but by the token holder community.
https://github.com/openhive-network/hive/blob/0.23.0/libraries/protocol/hardfork.d/0_22.hf
Thanks, but not the exclusion list - where did you see the phrase about the 'hive dev fund'?
https://medium.com/@hiveblocks/press-release-the-new-hive-blockchain-is-launching-heres-everything-you-need-to-know-b95b05d30c7c
No mention of retaining the SINMS for the DAO in blocktrades' original post.
If there's money on offer, people will take it. I'd much rather see witnesses writing and reviewing code. If total supply were lower, and price higher, witness rewards could cover development costs, particularly as there's no clear, urgent path forward after SMT's, which is already coded.
Blockchains need funding to continue development, but if there's consensus to burn stake in the proposal system which got there as part of the Steemit ninja-mined stake, that can be discussed also. The ninja-mined stake was sold as stake to be used for development and promotion of the chain, so I see no contradiction putting it in the proposal system. It's the most accurate thing to do based on the commitments made for almost four years now, IMO.
All good arguments, but not even hinted at in blocktrades' original post.
I don't want the price to languish under 800,000 tokens a month in programmatic selling, just so the guy with grandiose promises and the right friends, can take his sweet time coding the flavour of the day on the base layer.
We've been there. You pay me $100,000 year to find Waldo, I'm never going to find him. All you'll get is poorer.
It's a silly game and I thought we'd stopped playing it.
Whether or not we stopped playing it will be determined by what proposals get funded and which ones don't which is decided not by an individual (as was the case with Ned), but by the token holder community.
Thanks for your hard work in this, by the way.