When have I ever said anything about paying programmers though? I agree with that it’s necessary core work. Making blurt shoes and providing and imagine no one liked anyways isn’t necessary and things like that should be up for community vote not just done behind closed doors. I don’t know why we keep talking about developers when I’ve never seen in person question paying them
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
Because it's all related. If the foundation leave, that means a lot of developers will leave with them. But the other part are not providing any developers. How you imagine a totally decentralized blockchain with no developers and nobody working on it. I still don't know if they have developers to replace those who will leave, but from what I know I didn't find anyone talking about that. I also don't understand why no one is talking about that.
@ericet was also a developer here. I guess he left because he preferred to work on something else. And I understand him. You can see the tool he worked on, I think that's one of the explorers : https://ericet.github.io/blurtexplorer/#/ I guess still working because the foundation are the one who are paying, and working on it. I'm not sure about this. But it seems that they are handling a lot of operations on the blockchain, and without them the blockchain will not work, we will need other developers who will handle that. Look at their activity here : https://gitlab.com/groups/blurt/-/activity
I don’t understand your Argument because I never said about not having a foundation I said that I want a foundation that is transparent honest and works for its community otherwise it might as well leave I just hope for the best because any investment is screwed anyway if they continue to act this way and not be transparent, throw money at their mates projects, block witnesses from the discord, freeze accounts they don’t like and not involve the community in any decisions.
Transparency includes payments for developers, for frontends, for servers where all the images are stored. That's why when you say ''transparent'' I understand that like payments for everything including developers.
Yeah I mean don’t get me wrong I’m happy to see that as well because if we find out that someone is getting paid more than the going rate just because I’m mega drive’s friend that’s also not good for the platform we should be able to help and make votes and choices as a community. It might turn out that because they’re friend they getting a good deal and I think then everyone would be happy but you’re right it’s about transparency and communicating with the community this isn’t supposed to be a one man ship that’s not what Blockchain is about
What if the community will not like to pay developers the amount they need ? Will we be able to find the right developers who are ok to work for an idea ? It's a big risk. That's why if you have a problem with one person doing everything, you may have to talk to him, but not me. I'm just sharing with you what I know. And what I know that without the foundation we will be all screw up. Unless you are sure that other developers are ready to do all their work. For me a working blockchain is what I would like to see. And if we have a choice between complete decentralization without any development, and some centralization with development, I would choose the second. Because I don't see any blockchain fully decentralized. There are always some people on the top. Especially with the system of proof of stake. You may need to read this : The Myth of Decentralisation and the Agents of Collusion.
I think people don’t like the lack of transparency for what is supposedly a blockchain at least somewhat decentralised platform. The idea is the community runs it to a large extent I guess if they drive it into the ground they drive it into the ground. From what I’ve seen when peopel are given freedom they tend to behave better and do better. Over on steemit now it feels a bit like a ship without sails but communities are building and I never see any issues there actuallt everyone just gets on with their own thing rly. Maybe I miss a lot but I don’t witness it. People don’t like being backed into corners.
I worked for someone once and he never rly told me what to do and gave me tons of freedom I gave sooooo much for that company I worked way over promised hours and was focused on building it all the time cause I felt like part of the team. Even now I’ll be always considered for any project that guy works on and I would do it in a heart beat cause even someone like me that can’t handle a job job can work for him. He just trusted people to do their thing and if they wefe rly bad told them to leave lol. It worked amazing well most people rly gave their all and more. You might be surprised how everyone might step up to the plate if they felt free. Personally I wouldn’t stand with a foundation that doesn’t allow the community to know anything / vote on anything / have any say or any idea what money is being spent where. I would rather sink a ship actually and at least have the values and morals that blockchain is meant to be, cause the ship is sinking with them as they are. If the foundation can change and adapt and start to behave more like it runs a blockchain platform rather than a dictatorship sure that’s the best option of them all.
I also hope for the best for this blockchain. And who knows, maybe because of this situation we will see more steem forks. Competition after all creates better product !