I have to admit that I am a bit concerned. The majority of the proposals only aims at ‘How can we make the life of people already in HOPR better’ – despite the fact that there is already a staking program.
This tendency feels short-sighted and neglects the fact that HOPR’s eventual success depends on adoption and on the growth of an ecosystem around HOPR. And not in subsidizing hardware for ~ 130 people who are already in elevated positions anyways or in airdropping a few tokens to every wallet already holding HOPR.
I’ve seen this mindset in a lot of DPOS projects before, where delegates are quite regularly the persons to make decisions. Most of the time they just care about their own advantage, which is toxic for the overall project mid- to longterm.
In this DAO, people should think about the easy question: What would be actions so advantageous for other people so that they join HOPR/build on HOPR etc.? And not: how can we get the max out of it?
And for purely pragmatic people → catalyzed adoption will make your HOPR balance way more worth longterm than a few free additional tokens now.
I see this as a long-term project, let’s use some of that money to airdrop loyal people to the project, the rest let’s do marketing so more people know about the project, we will have to follow the project. many more years for the project to have real products and applications, in the crypto world, that’s not a huge amount of money, so there’s no need to be so strict about using them anyway, also thank the team for the small amount but they still consult the community
Exactly my thoughts. I am thinking about some sort of mix DeFi/NFT plan to attract users from other projects. For example, in xDai chain, there are not much great NFT projects, and HOPR can take advantage of this void by launching a good NFT program to increase awareness and hype around HOPR.
Well explained. I have deep concerns over the proposals…
I’ve almost come to a point in my life where i believe DAOs cause more harm than good.
Most nation wide referandums often result the same… 'Voters do not always have the capacity or information to make informed decisions about the issue at stake, and instead may make ill-informed decisions based on partial knowledge or on the basis of unrelated factors such as the state of the economy"
We’re debating issues that most of us are likely unfamiliar with.
Yes, DAOs give users the capacity to express their views. However, in practice they become problematic and are sometimes used to manipulate people. Most proposal owners engage those with relatively low information about the issues.
Unity is strength.
Edit: HOPR DAO v0.2 was a success for democracy but it caused more harm than good in the end.
Honestly this phase should be 2 weeks instead of 1, along with some better organization or category labeling. Having some more time would really help.
Sidenote–I’m still browsing through the posts looking for the ire of Rik and Sebastion: “Wen Binance?”
I agree with the category labelling problem. Discourse is a bit of a mess with how it organizes things, and it’s hard to stay on top of. We’re looking to move to a different tool for future experiments which should help - we just wanted to keep things low tech for the first few iterations.
not all the proposals are like you mentioned. of course there would be such offers supporting self benefit in accordance with human nature. however there are some proposals which aims general benefit besides some advantages to HOPr project. my proposal is number 13 and it is about to use funds for a scholarship which HOPR can discover new talents. you can think it as an academic scouting. HOPR can hire people who win scholarship or they can contribute to project at least with their studies.