Proposal Abuse Alert

in Hive Governance3 months ago



Proposal Abuse Alert


I normally would not call out someone specifically but after enough research I am more convinced our governance model around proposals is broken and requires serious revamping that I'll be the first to admit I am not personally capable of doing.

First, I'd like to break this down for the average salary an American blockchain developer would make around Andrew aka netuoso's domicile, because Andrew (aka Netuoso) is currently living in the USA (per his Linkedin).

  • Here is a table from Google what current Blockchain developers are compensated annually...

According to census data, the average income Netuoso should hope to earn based on where he lives is around $150,000 (conservatively)

Here is the linkedin profile of the talent we elected to hire as a "full-time" developer of our blockchain through the DAO / DHF (whatever you want to call it, the decentralized fund)


Source: Linkedin Profile

At the moment, Andrew aka Netuoso is earning 275 HBD a day or about 100k USD per year; however, from his linkedin this is not his only job, he is currently a CEO of another company...


Source: Linkedin Profile

In my experience, I've learned to make any serious change is to get executive support. The executives in a decentralized infrastructure are different; so, I am choosing to call out all the Hive users and users I believe are supporting in the exploitation of our system. The anecdote I am highlighting here is the proposal being funded by @netuoso who is currently being paid 275 HBD daily.

The current supporters of of @netuoso are as follows (in millions):

@theycallmedan: 54.151
@appreciator: 21.810
@v4vapid: 6.900
@innerhive: 6.008
@roelandp: 4.687
@superhardness: 4.237
@buildawhale: 4.187
@steemcleaners: 3.200
@jphamer1: 3.044
@fenghuang: 3.023
@znnuksfe: 2.269
@delso: 1.918
@michealb: 1.730
@ezzy: 1.710
@shaka: 1.700

... and 248 more

The fact is his proposal is earning him 100k almost in-line with what a full time blockchain developer would hope to earn in his geographic area. At the same time, he is working as a CEO of another company taking away time from his ability to support his Hive development as promised in his proposal.

The issue at hand is accountability. There is no one to say that this time conflicts with his ability to perform against to promises he were granted from the approved DHF / DAO Hive proposal granted to him which accounts for 100k USD or 75% of what a full time blockchain developer would hope to make in his same geographic region.

At the same time, his linkedin profile isn't all that impressive. He doesn't even seem he has a college degree, but I'm not saying that sets any sort of standard; however, it can act as a baseline on what the DAO should expect to pay for the same level of talent.

I'm not going to disclose the information I'm privileged to but it's mentioned that other key stakeholders have questioned the value that Netuoso has afforded to hive by @therealwolf and others. I know I am calling you out specifically, but I'm not citing screenshots of chat channels I've observed that cite this point.

I'm open to to the benefit of doubt but I'd like to hear the concerns of other Hive stakeholders, but most importantly other Hive users as follows:

@ate-David
@d-pend
@neoxian
@ecoinstant
@lordbutterfly
@a1-shroom-spores
@funnyman


Accountability is Essential

I believe accountability is essential for every stakeholder of Hive. In my opinion, every Hive user wants more Hive users, but most importantly we want more money staked to Hive. That's because at this point, we've all learned that when real value comes to Hive. If we do not have the ability to monitor the people getting paid from the DAO / DHF, then there is no way to hold them accountable. A 3 month project could take 3 years and no one is expected to ask why. That's a problem because someone has to be asking why!

Who is holding awardees of Hive proposals accountable? The answer is that nobody is.


Why Now?

I've been debating with myself whether to bring this issue up in public but after the post below I thought it was appropriate to bring to the attention of Hive users but specifically those addressed in this post.


Source: Hive.Blog

I encourage anyone who reads this to directly comment on this thread so that your voice is heard. At this point, I believe this is critical because presently, Hive lacks the accountability to manage against any exploitation of the DAO / DHF funds effectively.

The post from cited from netuoso highlights that there are serious questions whether awardees of Hive proposals are milking Hive.

Whether it's 50k HBD or 1m HBD it makes no difference because we should not allow such a system to be so easily exploited and misunderstood by the voters who award these funds.


Governance is Essential

In the short term, I believe we should enforce accountability and set an example of Netuoso but I would prefer that top witnesses decide upon this as an interim solution since we lack the governance structure to do anything about this.


What Are Your Thoughts?

I'm curious to hear comments from other Hive stakeholders, because I don't think I'm the only one and this material weakness can't be ignored. I think this is only the beginning and prevents the development of a real catalyst to be created through the compensation the DAO / DFH otherwise allows for a sustainable Hive growth model.

The only way Hive grows is through proper compensation and no one wants to stake that, that's what the DAO / DHF is for, right?


The Ask

The ask here is that I would like the supporters of his proposal to seriously consider whether he is contributing the value that is promised. In Netuoso's last post other users have claimed that he hasn't done any development for 4 months, and I don't believe this is acceptable.

No Hive developer holds a monopoly on Hive, their talents can be replaced. I'm sure Netuoso has contributed to Hive, but is it worth the value asked for? Is that the system we want to continue to allow? Do we want to make it so easy to question the integrity of the growth of Hive?

Presently we hardly have any real full time development. Sure there are many volunteers contributing to coding Hive, but people being paid by the DAO / DHF should be held to a different standard.

I don't think it's practical for the voters to assess value and do the investigation required and perform the due diligence required to assess their value.


What do you think? Can We Take Action?

Sort:  

He’s currently not getting anything. The return proposal is getting more votes. But the fact that so many large stakeholders are still voting on his proposals is indicative of what a joke the system is. Vote decay is the first thing that should be implemented to at least keep people actively evaluating proposals.

In another post he was getting paid up until 3 days ago, so the point still stands. The awareness seem to have took funding away.

Not just the vote decay. Downvote would also be required.

The joke is not in the system but on the large stakeholders.

These are some fairly pointed accusations but I do not think they are without occasion.

I would be curious if Andrew is still holding that CEO role or maybe he hadn't updated his LinkedIn. But if he is still filling the role of a CEO. That is no trivial thing I would imagine in terms of commitment of time and energy.

Understand that others have brought up similar doubts but I have not yet reviewed enough of it to draw a definitive conclusion.

I am interested to see how this unfolds. In any case, your post may been the impetus for analysis and would say that merits my vote. Thanks

Reblogging for visibility

Seeing how Linkedin is a very good job search tool and an easy way to send a resume, I don't see how anyone using it professionally would let it be neglected.

I don't plan on a career change and yet when I bought a new laptop yesterday, the first app I downloaded (apart from Coinbase, CoinGecko and Ecency) was linkedin.

Still, he should weigh in. But I don't see that happening.

I'd love a statement form @netuoso. In general that's the reason for doubt: The lack of updates/accountability.

To make matters worse while dud developers are being handed free cash for no work, other projects are not being approved and the fund remains under utilized.

image.png

I hope to see some accountability from those major partners that voted and funded his proposals. If there isn't, then I think we know that much more about what we're dealing with here.

deleted comment

Some things shouldn't be shared on Twitter...just saying.

Raising awareness is great and so was your post but sharing sensitive info out there makes Hive look like a shithole.

We should take care of our shit on our own...

point taken and 100% agree. I removed it.

Congratulations @cryptoknight12! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You published more than 200 posts. Your next target is to reach 250 posts.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:

Feedback from the September 1st Hive Power Up Day

And why is this guy silent ??? I would like to hear it.

Posted Using LeoFinance

He is currently not funded...

He was 3 days ago

Putting a screenshot of someone's face and the words "Abuse Alert" next to it with a warning sign doesn't match the content of your post which, if I understood correctly, is about investigating the matter. (I.e. an investigation doesn't start with the presupposition that the person has done something wrong.)

What do you think of the idea to have a requirement coming from the community along the lines of: the creator of each funded proposal should be providing weekly updates. If the creator fails to provide a weekly update, then someone from the community can start a post and the community can investigate what's going on. Each member of the community can then decide whether to keep voting or unvote.

In this way we have a weekly feedback cycle for each proposal. Ideally, the creator of the proposal would post weekly updates and get feedback from the community on each update. But if there is no update from the creator, then the community starts its own posts and does its own investigations and - I imagine if there's no input from the creator - the proposal will quickly lose support.

What do you think?

I probably could have made a better thumbnail. But, in my opinion the investigation is closed and the person mentioned did abuse the proposal system. Part of the problem is no one on hive investigates anything in a trusted way... unless I'm missing something. I'm not claiming to be a professional PI so not concerned much by the critique.

I think that's a better interim state for sure, but not a very good permanent one. I think someone needs to be paid from DAO funds who could report out that same way at a high level. That's like a job with assigned responsibilities. The devs paid by DAO proposals would owe a report to the audit team. The audit team would verify it's worth and also that it's moving in the right direction.

We shouldn't have to investigate on the back-end the process should be more upfront and transparent. Not saying it's a bad idea, it has good parts to it and could at the very least serve as an immediate / interim solution as mentioned.

One concern with having an audit team is that the audit team requires someone to audit their work. And the community will again have to do the work of auditing, but this time they'd have to audit the work of the audit team. At the end of the day, it seems to me, the community is the final evaluator of the work done. In a traditional hierarchical corporation the CEO is the final evaluator.

If someone is paid funds from the DAO to evaluate work, another concern is also that this entity is subject to corruption/collusion with the proposal creator whose work has to be evaluated.

I still like the idea of an audit team: one role could be someone who is well versed in verifying / actual code audit, my guess is this person is weaker in skills around project / communications management. The weekly updates might come from someone with the role of communications. The issue does still stand with corruption. Rotation could help that but we'd have to have a better funnel of recruitment and people with skills in C. Maybe Hive Audit is not the right word, but Hive Jobs.

Auditor may just be one job, depending on workload. A rotating CEO of these jobs could help with the corruption element.

  1. Auditor: Assesses Valuation of Proposals: e.g. how much time would it take versus what's being asked for (dev hours), how does it align with our needs, review code
  2. Communications Manager: Provides updates and works close with auditor. Weekly 1v1 calls.
  3. Hive Job Manager: Highly Rotating Position

Proposals should have a model of holding half the award too until code is reviewed by auditor. If passes the sniff test the last half is paid out thru a vested model. If not, it's given back to the DAO.

These are half baked ideas thou obv. Thanks for your input

Like I said earlier, this isn't the right way to approach the situation. I don't believe that there will be products undelivered but I recognize that what I know is partially confidential and would not be known by the public, particularly when it involves personal matters that have contributed to how the work is going.

Interestingly, your rate table indicates clearly why Toronto (my hometown) has a brain drain.