RE: Hive History.

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

View the full context

shmoogleosukami in #hive • 2 months ago (edited)

Stabilizer has done quite a bit to keep HBD stable on the internal market although the spread is still not ideal and the amount of liquidity is extremely limited.

HBD is on literally one exchange externally and is pretty much left to do whatever and isn't an accurate indicator of HBDs PEG. Generally the haircut rule and internal markets are the only really indicators of it's stability at the moment and it's far from being perfect, and orders of magnitude worse than any other stable coin in existence today.

I'd argue it's better than nothing and I feel you'd likely agree but ofcourse it doesn't mean we should sit on our hands.

Hive fundamental issue has always been a lack of awareness, exchange listings, news coverage, user friendly UI/UX & onboarding procedures to name just a few and frankly I don't see this improving anytime within the next year. VSC might change this and accelerate some progress towards better UX/UI and onboarding but it's not going to be quick by any means.

With regards to paying coders specifically. I Imagine a system where coding tasks can be put up for coders, either individual or a team, can place BIDs on them of a price they want paying for the work, they person added the task could put up a price or price range they are willing to pay or the chain is willing to offer depending on what is going to pay for such thing in the end.

The job would be payed upon recept of functioning code, that is then merged and tested into the main code base, only then would payout be recieved.

The problem I have imagining atm is who gets the jobs.. How do we decide on that?
Is it decentralized done via stake based voting like the DHF. Natureally we'd require anyone bidding for a job to display coding background and previous projects, best done with github accounts as history of code contributions is easy to look at on there.

But it's deciding who we go with thats the part I can figure out right now.
I mean.. We could just make it a bounty system. Here is task.. it pays this much, if you build it and it gets tested and merged into the codebase cool you get paid..

But here another issue crops up.. Who decided if it's good code? Obviously the witnesses.. but. not many of the witnesses have exceptional code experience or knowledge of the HIVE codebase. Does the core team decide? the people in control of the codebase and sourcecode.. i.e blocktrades and a few others? Granted it's not total control, in an ideal world witnesses should actually review the code they are running when new versions come out but in reality many just trust blocktrades and the rest. Not all witnesses mind.. The concensus ones are all very familiar with the code and actually do proper reviews.

Anyway I digress..
I can imagine most of the system. just certain parts might require more thought..
Perhaps a google doc is in order to write down and design this thing.

2 months ago in #hive by shmoogleosukami

0.00 ARCHON

1 vote

Sort:

Trending

[-]

thehive 2 months ago

Awareness is not an issue.

All the things you mention are the things of why it is this way. Are brought about by influence.

We have to make our own. We are decentralised. we do not have a financier. We need one. We need to make our one.

0.00 ARCHON

[-]

thehive 2 months ago

lol Write them down. It is all over the discord server

0.00 ARCHON

[-]

shmoogleosukami 2 months ago

we do not have a financier. We need one

The DHF is 'supposed' to be this financier.

If we make our own financier, It's have to be a private company that fronts the capital to do so.

If we create a trustless type system that runs on chain and take money from ?? inflation? Well that's the DHF. To be funded by anything else would require a HUMAN completely removing it's trustless status.

The problem I'm seeing in my mind is.. in order to do things like Finance development without doing things like take from chain token inflation fundamentally REQUIRES a human and in doing some require trust, reputation and most of all LIABILITY.

The reason no company has popped up to get us on exchanges and act like a foundation of sorts to provide funding is specifically because exchanges generally require a scapegoat. someone or something that will be LIABLE if something goes wrong on chain like a hack or some bad fork that fucks things up. Because everything is at the behest of the old system and governing laws.

I'd add I'm by no means familiar with a lot of this subject around exchanges and foundations ect. But it's been a recurring feature in conversation that no one seems to want a foundation or centralized entity controlling the chain and no one in the right mind would make a company or foundation working on behalf of the chain because places like exchanges would what them to be held liable for failures in the chain.

I'm in the mind that the core devs like blocktrades are reluctant to build systems that require humans, everything needs to be trustless and decentralized and that's a difficult thing to do when it comes to money and funding. cause thats what the DHF is to an extent. the only human factor is the voting of proposals. everything else is trustless and done via code.

0.00 ARCHON

1 vote

[-]

thehive 2 months ago

It requires humans to code.

You have the basic concept now.

0.00 ARCHON