RE: Crypto Thoughts, Hive Debates, and a Good Meal to End the Day
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
"...have a group that go into the DHF and keep watch of the current proposals and serve as a way to report..."
So, you'd create a government committee to run the DHF.
How about no?
How about we all vote the Return Proposal until proposals commit to and employ GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles, double entry bookkeeping) to prevent fraud? There are credible allegations of theft by fraud from Valueplan yet unresolved. I have confronted Valueplan principals and demanded receipts that would prove no fraud occurred, and they flatly refused to EVER supply receipts.
Until proposals use GAAP, Hive is all but begging DHF fund recipients to steal the money.
I'm not ever voting for a proposal that won't use the simple accounting every 7-11 in the world uses every day. There is no good reason not to do so. Wherever you work, whatever you do, your company uses double entry bookkeeping or there is money being embezzled from it. I have worked for companies that didn't use it, and every time the owner was embezzling from the company (to avoid taxes, or alimony/child suppor).
I think we are both arguing the same thing, whenever it's by committee out by reporting style, there should be some reporting. In my opinion, most people don't know, or don't want to read numbers and balance sheet. They rather have someone tell them what all that means. Are they ahead of schedule, behind of schedule, is it manageable or is it a lost cause and the fund should cut the loses.
It is good that Hive, like FOSS, is open source, because it has that same power that enables FOSS to investigate software to investigate DHF fund recipients. There is no formal committee that audits code, but anyone or everyone can do so, and those with the skill and the interest do. I am confident the same will happen on Hive, and that if irregularities are found the finder can simply post on Hive that an audit is necessary and why. DHF fund recipients can either simply comply and enable an audit, or respond and say why they shouldn't. Folks can decide for themselves whether they support an audit or not, and if they do then we can demand an audit. If the fund recipient refuses, they will not receive funding again, and we could refer them to law enforcement if they are suspected of crimes, such as theft by fraud.
We don't all need to read the books. We only need the books to be available, and someone will. That's how open source works, and it works well.
True but as opposed to open source, you can't modify anything. Yes, you can report but without the authority it is very hard to make any adjustments.
Of course you can commit code to stop any proposals but that doesn't mean the community will execute that code. And so is the main problem with many of these rouge proposal beneficiaries.
Also nobody is rewarding this activity which can be tedious, controversial and even unpopular. So there should be some kind of reward to ensure continuity.