the developers and core team is one thing but friends being given money to make shoes and possibly just let their images be used for huge sums of money when they don't have the money to pay for needed developers or marketing is really off to me and I would love to see a list of where all the money has been given and to what projects so it\s not just hearsay but we can see for ourselves, even share holders get this right and blockchain is supposed to be more transparent, thats the whole point of it. I personally would like to see the community be able to make decisions on what money is spent where and see people in the community working hard given a helping hand to grow their projects outside of the money holders friends.
RE: Part 2 - The Real Threat of Community Hijacking
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Part 2 - The Real Threat of Community Hijacking
Do we have such transparency in steem or any other blockchain you know ?
To a point yes on steemit and hive proposals are at least publicly voted on and blurt is supposed to be an improvement. Right now it seems it’s just one person giving out money to ppl he chooses.
I don't mean proposals. They are usually funded and voted only if big stake vote on them. I mean how much developers are paid, how much they spend on frontends, servers and many other things they do.
I didn’t ask for that tho nor did anyone they are asking how much people are getting funded for proposals / users images being bought at huge prices and various other things. Haven’t seen anyone questioning development costs at all. Even hive and steemit have proposals that at least have the appearance of getting somewhat voted on by the community, even tho we know stake makes it unfair they could do a numbers based thing. Anything is better than just the site founder handing out money to some of his friends and no one knowing about It.
That's an issue, because if some people are complaining about some payment, if we will understand how much is going for developers, frontends, servers and maybe other costs, we will understand how much was left. And if the cost of all the needs is high enough, so we will understand that the money is not that big [I mean what left for those who had that money].
Also, we should understand the cost of needs of blockchain in case the other side win, that means they will hire new developers, they will need to pay them, maybe use other servers, create other frontends... etc.
The question in this case will be, will the cost of all those needs be higher or not ? In case the cost will be higher, so we will have another danger in the future, in case lower, I don't know. I hope I explained this well. I look at the big picture.
there isn't enough money for enough development, this has been spoken about by witnesses an number of times, so it's not like there is left over money. If everything was really flowing with blurt, the price was huge I understand throwing some money at shoe businesses etc but this is kind of crazy. My biggest issue is why are these things not given the chance to be voted on by the community rather than just MD giving money to his friends and why isn't there a transparent list of current proposals going on. It just really feels these days like this isn't a decentralised site in the slightest just one owned by MD where he decides who can post, have an account, hold blurt tokens in their wallet, curate and who can give money to friends to build whatever they want. Thats in no way decentralisation not even the pretence of it.
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@world-travel-pro/some-questions-for-double-u
We asked many times about the plans if the foundation will step aside. But no one talked about them. While I see that so important. Look at the post of travel pro when he asked double u many questions that needed an answer now. But no answers were given.
I don't really understand your argument as no one in this thread is saying for them to step aside, I can't comment on that either way this thread is about the foundation being held accountable for what they re spending and being transparent about who is being sent money from the fund. There are lots of other discussions going on but that is this one. This one is about proposals and who is getting paid for what.
This was the main failure point in my estimation on those seeking to be the new sheriff in town.
you can still break down how much is spent on developing without giving actual wages, although really on the blockchain everyone using it should be ok with being transparent about how much they are earning, I don't really see why people even believe in blockchain if they don't want to be transparent.
I think the best way to fund projects is crowdfunding. Where people donate to good projects.