RE: Proposal Abuse Alert

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

View the full context

borislavzlatanov in Hive Governance • 6 months 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?

6 months ago in Hive Governance by borislavzlatanov

0.00 CTP

Sort:

Trending

[-]

cryptoknight12 6 months ago

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.

0.00 CTP

[-]

borislavzlatanov 6 months ago

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.

0.00 CTP

1 vote

[-]

cryptoknight12 6 months ago

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.

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
Communications Manager: Provides updates and works close with auditor. Weekly 1v1 calls.
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

0.00 CTP