DHF Improvements - Transparency & Reviewers
Hivers,
for a while now, I’ve been thinking about how we can make better financial decisions as a blockchain and community. The issues around DHF spending aren’t new. Many, including myself, have often been vocal about it. Personally, I’ve been voicing my opinion year after year in our developer chat on Mattermost - hoping something would change or that my concerns were wrong. But my time for talking and standing on the sidelines is now over - I want to get practical and help Hive take action.
We Need to Spend Smart, Not Reckless
It should be clear to everyone that Hive, as a blockchain and community project, needs to invest into certain areas to grow. Product and engineering, marketing, business development, events, partnerships — all of these are critical for Hive to reach its potential.
Spending money isn’t bad, but reckless, inefficient, or opaque spending is.
One of the biggest concerns from stakeholders and community members has been around the ValuePlan. Since its creation in 2022, it has spent over $3.8 million, which is roughly $1 million per year.
(Source)
While this spending was approved by stakeholders, the how and why behind it often remained unclear and opaque. How much was spent on the rally car? $200k? $400k? $800k? I’m not here to throw shade — but in any traditional organization, if outcomes don’t align with expectations, accountability follows.
We can’t enforce accountability retrospective, but we can build better systems that make accountability automatic.
A Better Way Forward
I believe we can do better — not just by talking about it, but by designing something that actually works for Hive and stays true to what makes this chain different.
That’s why I’m proposing a new, structured system that builds on our current DHF foundation while addressing its weaknesses. It also aligns with many ideas raised during the recent HiveForum discussion.
This would not create more bureaucracy or prevent people from creating raw proposals for the DHF. Neither is it about rewriting the DHF or starting from zero. But rather to bring structure, transparency, and measurable results to the DHF.
1. Experienced & Skilled Reviewers
Whether it’s about engineering, marketing, business development, or community, requests should be reviewed by people who actually know the field.
No serious organization would let someone with no relevant experience make key funding decisions. Hive shouldn’t either.
Reviewers should be votable by stakeholders, and revokable based on performance.
This keeps it decentralized while maintaining standards.
2. Transparency as Default
All requests, approvals, and payments should be recorded transparently and verifiably.
Receipts should be public and verifiable where possible even with sensitive data removed.
If the majority of stakeholders disagree with a funding decision, there should be a way to challenge it. That way, the community has direct control over funding in case they disagree with reviewers.
By following these principles, we can build a trustless 2nd-layer proposal system — fast enough to execute, yet decentralized enough to stay true to Hive’s core values.
Implementation Concept
To visualise how such a 2nd-layer DAO platform could work, I’ve built a small demo application.
Buckets
Each funding “bucket” has its own seasonal budget cap and proposal process.
At least three reviewers are selected by stakeholders each season. For example, the top 3 are chosen. Optionally, if they are not fulfilling their roles, they could be rotated out mid-season.
Example buckets:
- Product & Engineering
- Business Development & Partnerships
- Marketing
- Events & Community Engagement
- (Optional) Research & Strategy
- (Optional) Operations
Treasurers
Each bucket’s funds are managed by multisig treasurers, ideally a group of 10–20 trusted accounts (e.g. witnesses) with a 51% threshold. Their job is simple: confirm payments weekly that reviewers have already approved.
After HF26, this should be easily manageable with 24-hour expiry on transactions. Multisig would need to be updated periodically.
Proposal Requests
Every proposal must specify its bucket and include the same kind of details we use in DHF proposals today.
Payments can be total or daily, but capped at a reasonable amount (e.g. $20k). Each proposal request would need to be approved by 2/3rd or 3/3rd of the reviewers - based on the funding amount.
Where We Go From Here
We have a strong community with incredible talent. We also have the luxury of a funding system that community members can use to bring our blockchain and ecosystem forward. But that also means we have a responsibility to manage it wisely.
It’s clear that Hive’s spending structure needs to evolve. We can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting better results and that's why I've written this post. Which is not a funding proposal but a call to improve the system first.
That said, building out the 2nd-layer DAO platform would require some resources. When the concept is fleshed out and has community backing, I'll prepare a transparent implementation proposal that includes clear deliverables, budget and timelines.
What You Can Do
For now:
- Read and discuss this concept.
- Share feedback and help refine the concept.
- If you think Hive needs a more accountable spending process, say so.
The more support this idea gets early, the smoother implementation can be later.
We’ve built Hive by proving we can stand up, fork away and built something of our own based on morale and ethics - even when the odds were against us. Not everything went smoothly and we lost quite a lot of people along the road. But,still, we followed our core principles.
Let's use our hive mind to make strategic decisions as a community.
I'll be at the Hive Townhall about "DHF spending and Hive strategy development" today at 8AM PST in the Hive discord, hosted by @vaultec, where I'll be happy to discuss this concept and answer any questions that may come up.
Wolf
So u mean like bootcamp?
Work assigned, work checked, and more like a workplace structure....
Giving me bootcamp vibes but here funds r directly involved.
Yes, more like a workplace structure. In most if not all of the big companies, a board oversees the company. For example, it can appoint or remove CEOs, make key decisions, and set the overall direction of the organization. Only on Hive, we - the stakeholders - are the board. We collectively decide how things run, who has influence, and what direction the ecosystem takes. So similar how we select Witnesses to secure the chain, we should be able to select people who make sure that the work that is being paid for is valid and achieves the set targets.
Well said. I too think that a system with reviewers could be very beneficial. If reviewers are experienced in their field, it wouldn't take them much time to check the plan for what is to be done, how it is to be done, and requested funds for it. And then to check the implementation and release funds accordingly. I guess both sides (the proposal creators and the DHF voters) have to trust the reviewers to do a reasonable assessment of things and to have in mind the best interest of all involved.
Yes, exactly. I've been reading your comments on MM and Hive on this topic and we have very similar thoughts on it.
We just need to get the right people, with the right experiences and skills in the right positions to review proposal requests, while being able to - as a collective - judge their results and being able to rotate them out.
One argument against it would probably be "why not create a separate proposal for each" and I'd say to that: "creating proposals and requiring enough votes to overtake the return proposal for attending an event or another small request is not feasible". That's what VP was created for and the idea still is valid, it just quickly grew from 50k per year to 1M per year without any way for the stakeholders to have direct influence. That's what the system should be able to help solve.
Cool. :) A possible way to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach is to have one proposal where the funding goes through reviewers. As a test. Could be a super small proposal (like a few hundred dollars or something). Maybe for a problem that stakeholders care about and it's currently unsolved, and there could be a small thing done to improve the situation at least somewhat.
No matter what and how you discuss, until the 3-4 top accounts keep voting for their beloved child proposals.
Hive, especially DHF currently makes me remember for the failed "universal basic income" kinda stuffs, and plenty other similar experiments backed by socialist, communist ideologies.
It never worked! (gulf countries are superrich from capitalism, so bad counter example)
Hive itself much smaller, obviously here, it won't work either. It was known long years ago!
I personally think we are in a time, when crypto market, blockchains trying to price themselves, based on their real value. The crypto hype has gone in the first few years, and now everything is getting near to its real value. (Silly people still think btc halving circles still have anything to do with smaller chains, simply because 1-2 times some parallel moves were visible... :) :) )
What is the real value in Hive? Obviously from capitalist point of view, as we first live in capitalism, and that won't change until the monetary, bank system not completely gone.
Fast and feeless transactions, earning opportunity for the small guys, without charging by big tech or banks! (when i say small guys, i dont think for the totally poor (mainly africans, asians or venezuelians), but small bloggers, vloggers, who lose 40-50% from their income because they operate on a big tech platform.)
That's all! I can't name any other real thing, what can be attractive for average users, developers, investors.
Does the DHF giving support to this direction? No! Not a single proposal focusing on showing Hive's no1 strenght.
What is bad with Hive (DHF)? The list is countless!
DHF isn't decentralized in practice.
Childish proposals getting 100s of thousands $s without any result,
accountability.
Proposed projects doesn't have time limit. (Project will be ready at xx.xx date)
Proposals not posted in phases. (1-3 months financing, for that, you reach xx phase of development)
Multiple UI proposals going on when 1 would be enough. None of them can earn income by itself, not viable at all.
None of the accepted DHF projects are viable! (So none of them should be accepted.)
None of the proposed projects discuss how they will stand on their legs, and earn at least that much what is enough for operation.
Nonsense charity donation from everybody's DHF, but it is decided by 3-4 person. (if they want to send their wealth to Africa, they should do it from their own pocket!)
Don't want to discuss further the focus for underdeveloped countries, what 100% won't bring money, growth to Hive in any form, nor other nonsense things, or the inflation what is not balanced by any buyback, but even pushed further with HBD. The list is really countless.
This is enough for my main point.
If someone see these things, have some common sense and a little money, what will they do, if they want to earn money from Hive?
THEY WILL SHORT IT WITH HIGH LEVERAGE!!!
Not only Hive's problem, there are other chains punished by this, too.
When Hive got futures listings - what about nobody knew, not even in the inside circles of Hive -, the chaing got an almost free, huge opportunity to grow in the west, with users who actually have money to invest, spend.
What Hive and DHF (valueplan) the 3-4 big guys did? Nothing! They let that opportunity fly away, instead spend few 100k more for nonsense!
Top of this, if you look into Hive's real value, including everything, apps, community, devs etc. realisticly hard to assume it worth more than 10m $.
Personally, I think, it is too late to change back this process. Knowing that the whales here would rather suck out few 100k more, than make actions, and do some work what benefits everybody, especially them, with much higher amounts.
Radical changes would be necessary. Pretty much stop DHF fundings, setup standards - so no more childish proposal can get a single vote -, if a project doesn't discuss good plan about how they will generate their own income after financed and ready, can be self-sustaining and what %age of their profit they will buy back Hive shouldn't be voted.
How I see, none of the whales, devs have any vision, plan here. They just like the lukewarm water. Some like to talk, some don't, but they all making no actions! They all earn some, without accountability. Almost like gov workers, politicians.
Thanks for the detailed comment. It was a bit difficult to read, but I gave it my best.
What you have to keep in mind is that none of the whales mentioned are receiving funding from the DHF. So whatever they’re voting on is likely what they genuinely believe to be in the best interest of Hive.
I understand your concerns and frustrations. The reality is that nothing we come up with will be perfect right from the start. But we should at least do our best to provide solutions that help the DHF funding be used more efficiently. Putting ideas on the table and discussing them publicly is a huge step forward — but we also need to get practical.
It’s also important to remember the past when shaping our plans for the future, but our focus must remain on moving forward — otherwise, the past will only hold us back.
I don't really mind. Long months ago, I also joined to the shorting group, and finally, for the first time, I earn from Hive!
Just follow things to see, if something happens, when shorting is not so 100% good bet anymore. Maybe even buying would make sense. but not even the smallest signs are there.
I listened 20-30 minutes from your discussions yesterday.
I did NOT hear a single sentence what was about what we'll do and when. No real action plans were mentioned. Also none of the top whales showed up, without them, it is pointless, as they make decisions, not the crowd.
Sure, directly and officially top whales do not receive money. However, projects like valuplan completely ignoring providing proof of spendings. no invoices, basically nothing, but the amounts what they spend for 1 project is insanely overpriced, so the money should go somewhere - many cases it obviously don't go where they write, so then where it goes? obvious suspects the whales, who vote for these nonsense spendings. i don't think they are stupid, so they must have their own self-interest for keep throwing money to all these obvious scam projects.
Plenty dev proposals are also looks very scammy, but at least insanely overpriced, as well.
Times a thousand! I’ve been saying this for ages: what other organization on earth can hand out money and then answer accountability questions with “trust me, bro”? I mean, seriously? We hand out so much money and... do we have any idea where it's all gone?
Any proposal that passes should be required to show where every penny goes. I’m not talking about endless paperwork or weekly reports, but... we do need expense reports, and periodic audits should be mandatory.
I'm totally with you that bureaucracy sucks. No one who’s worked in the corporate world wants more of it. But at its core, bureaucracy exists for a very good reason: without oversight, reckless spending will destroy any organization. And that’s exactly what’s happening to Hive right now.
Good that you brought this up. I have been pretty much vocal about investing in Hive marketing stuff rather than funding people for something that I believe is not adding much value to Hive.
Users should have a platform where they can voice their concerns and suggestions.
I did discuss that Hive car rally thing which to me was not a smart move as we have to choose the right place where we need to promote this platform.
Anyhow, being someone having been involved in so many things for more than a decade now and with a business studies background, let me know how may I be of some help to you for the betterment of this platform.
Only smart way to spend these funds is just paying shillers like Zcash did with their dev tax. Just pay big names on twitter to shill Hive and we’re at 10$ in no time. Instead of wasting on Value Plan and other stuff NOBODY uses.
That's rich coming from the biggest top 20 witness dumper. At this pace, hive will be dead and you will need to get a real job.
We need business-like approach to the DHF. It's basically investment money, we need to get something in return for every dollar spent. I'm glad we've finally got to this conclusion. Let's see if I can make it to the live show tonight.
You have been manual curated and upvoted by @ecency
well thought out plan. i especially agree with the spending cap part. and yes.. accountability.
Congratulations @therealwolf!
You raised your level and are now an Orca!
Check out our last posts: