Hive's Dilemma: To Network State or Not to Network State?
A few weeks ago, I had an exchange of opinions with the @cttpodcast people about the future of Network States and Hive. Prior to that, I had already shared my opinion on the significance of Network States becoming a popular concept and the role I believe Hive has to play. While no one explicitly stated that Hive is a Network State, we are the closest to Balaji's vision, and I see this as a great opportunity for Hive to use this narrative as a huge marketing lever to reach a wider audience. However, I also believe that Hive can still be free to not follow Balaji's schedule, including crowdfunding a piece of land, which seems far-fetched to me after some thinking.
I have a huge respect for the entire @spknetwork team, and for Dan personally. I believe the tools they build are going to be a huge improvement for Hive, and I have been voting for @threespeak witness for some time already. However, I see this issue differently, and I would love to test this optics with their vision and community feedback.
In my second article, I described how much Hive fits into the given definitions and how much Hive needs a simple, understandable narrative to be embraced by people. Containers of social media, platforms, or protocols to build on can be limiting or foreign to a larger audience. There might be a temptation to fit into an even bigger narrative and encompass other entities under the Hive infrastructure-provider umbrella. However, I see this as a risky game. Hence, Hive faces a dilemma to solve, a crossroad.
After some thinking, I have formed an opinion. However, first, let's state some facts and assumptions I operate under. I believe that it is not by accident that the idea of Network States gained wider recognition after decentralized ledger technology has been battle-tested by years of struggling in the free market. Blockchain was simply the missing puzzle to create for this idea a bridge from imagination to reality.
In other words, monetary independence from fiat money is a key component and a solid base upon which any digital statehood might be imagined. Rate of inflation, distribution of tokens, APR on your savings (and a way to set it), haircut trigger, these are key metrics set by the governance of the base layer. These might and should vary between chains to create healthy economics of the future. These often reflect the general values praised by the community built around a chain. The strongest unifying force for a community is this set of rules, vision of governance, something that is not changed very often.
Here comes the feeling of sovereignty, here comes the ability to feel a common interest and shape an ownership mindset. These are very important social needs of human beings that we have been deprived of by the nation-state and corporate capitalism. On this basis, any other project, business, community, or game can be built, but not the Network State, this one is a being of a higher order.
Why would any group of people decide to build on some protocol, having no power on tokenomics and governance of the base layer? The software is open source (very good!) and can be copied and started with different parameters with the ability to create decentralized governance from day one. Or any other kind of semi-decentralized software might be built to support a different set of values of a given Network State. It seems much more attractive than working your ass off to get to TOP20 witnesses as a representative of a layer 2 Network State to get any say in governance.
Even if the layer 2 solution provides a full set of tools to create any model possible, there is still a notion of dependence on layer one, which, even if not based on real premises, will be felt and taken into account by the next founding fathers.
What I love about Hive is its organic nature and bottom-up organization. From time to time its good however to ask a question. What are we doing here actually? Because it might turn out we are so far ahead of a curve, we might be missed by running train of events. I'd love to see this train to stop on station called Hive. Do you know what I mean?
Illustrations are one my first tries with MidJourney.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
https://twitter.com/950282251606032385/status/1637051425237745664
https://twitter.com/1331330355513745413/status/1637094298914103299
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people( @deepresearch, @taskmaster4450le ) sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.
Agree with you HIVE need a story, a vision. Are we a social network chain/ecosystem? A gaming ecosystem? A dApp ecosystem, ie a general purpose chain? Maybe a future payment chain? From the feature we have in the base layer, we are a social network. That said, I dont think we have conpeling enough social network experience. To many UIs are not sexy, and even not easy to use (think FB, Twiiter, Instagram look and feel with tremendous fast UIs and totally optimised UX experences). For a general purpose chain we 1) miss smart contract on base layer 2) we need to move blogging rewards away from base layer. Though for some time I was inclined to go general purpose full swing, these days I feel we shall stay social network chain. Though whatever we choose as a collective, we shall up our game in creating the services that will play with the masses. And yes, I do believe we shall select one course and all dev shall be fousing on contributing to rhat one course we selected. Whatever that course maybe.
The trick is to choose narrative which is sexy, not limiting in any way and possibly simple. I believe network state fullfils these premises and makes Hive stand out of the crowd.
I just believe we are far off becoming a Network State. Dont know the exact theory of such, but feel we need direct influence on governance, not through witnesses of which most are not looking at as as a society but just focus on technicals. Added to that, we need mucho better governance tools and perhaps also governance itself need to be more democratic on quite a number of aspects. Though I agree, maybe heading towards Network State may be a great road to walk.
The theory is a vision in one man's head. There is no official council of accepting or rejecting Network States. There is no need for constitution and say now we are this or that.
If it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck its a duck.
We need to dump old mental maps about statehood. Network states might vary, have different modes of operating, different governance model, different level of identification with the whole idea. I believe it's more about story at this level.
Noone know what network states will turn out to be in 10 or 50 years. We have one highly not institutionalised, organicly grown, very transparent, tested and open. There might be different ones. The basic thing is: we are group of people acting in coordination for a common interest with monetary independence and a governance model and set of rules.
I didn't realise The Network State is so fresh. Just found the podcast channel over on YT; Started a month or so ago. Also found the book itself. Bookmarked both for later reading and listening.
Interestingly, when I first joined the network of which I won't say the name; The one that preceded us, from which we were born; I ended up in conversation with more than a few peeps about what may be called Network State.
True, a network state doesn't have to go by the concepts we know from nation states. That said, I can imagine The Network State requires some to more of the governance models we use in the nation-state model. For years I didn't really think about this topic anymore. I suppose, need to get my head around it again, since I do very much like experimentation with anything that is out of the norm, or even completely new and undiscovered. I suppose the reason why am hanging in with the HIVE community for the last 6 years 😎
To the note of HIVE being the only one, or part of a few projects that could be, or become a Network State: I think many more projects can be classified as such or heading towards such. Many projects have their communities, and many of them do allow community voting in some way, even if these are polls in a Telegram Group or on Discord. Many do allow at least influence on other governance aspects of things.
Thanks for posting about this, and our conversation, since it did spark renewed interest in digging into this topic. Maybe I should also re-connect with a community formed around this crypto community building a Network State and Nation-State in one, the crypto way 😉
I see this idea being brought up from time to time and I wonder what for? I have not seen it explained. As in, for what purpose would such change serve? What benefit would come from it and conversely, what problems are caused now by having author rewards on the base layer?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, literally that I don't know and am curious, and wonder if you can share the reasoning?
Even when HIVE should stay and/or focus on being a social chain powering different forms of social networks, the HIVE distribution to content on the base layer focusses many users on earning HIVE instead of second-layer tokens linked to new social network initiatives. I think that prevents other tokens to become successful, or at least, makes it more difficult. Added to that, plenty of HIVE is distributed in auto voting manner, or blindly manual voting. Both are kinda not how proof-of-brain should work.
However, I do very much like the distribution of HIVE to whomever, large or small players. So maybe we shall not remove the distribution of HIVE to whomever, but implement a mechanism to distribute HIVE to those contributing to the HIVE eco-system. One of the ideas I have is to establish a kinda distributed governance system which decides on HIVE distributions to users based on all sorts of criteria, not posts or comments though. Such a governance system shall be very active, reviewing on high frequency who should get some of the HIVE we mint every single day. Criteria should be dynamically determined by the community. Those who decide how to distribute should be elected constantly. Many different decision-makers, in independent groups, should be established. How to implement such a governance system, I didn't really detail yet. Somehow I like the set-up of EdenOS, a multi-layer election system with randomness included and the need for re-elections every couple of months. Other governance systems can be thought of as well, of course. But the trick is, those elected should be easily removed when they do 'wrong', whatever we decide is wrong. Added to all of that, we need the proper tools to support such a governance system. I suppose we shall experiment hell out all this before moving into such a new system 😉
When we removed content awarding on the base layer, I believe 2nd layer social tokens get more chances. Plus we reduce the fights over how HIVE is currently distributed. The aforementioned big blind manual votes, the auto votes to lazy authors and all that. And it also helps to position HIVE chain as a true general-purpose chain since the content-rewarding aspects aren't part of the base layer anymore.
That is interesting. For your first point, I see what you mean. I suppose there would be a disincentive to earning second-layer tokens but that's because there's actual value to be made in earning HIVE and HBD, as it can be sold for local currency which can then be exchanged for goods or services that people need. As far as I know, that can't be done with second-layer tokens. Or it can, but not directly. In fact, doing so just adds another layer to the process so it's simpler to focus on earning HIVE and HBD.
Also, there are already a few different front-ends that reward with HIVE, sometimes in conjunction with their own second-layer tokens and sometimes without, so the status quo hasn't prevented new front-ends from being made. There's Liketu and Reverio that are pretty recent examples. Perhaps there would be more by now if everyone moved away from wanting HIVE and HBD towards wanting second-layer tokens, but then the question becomes how would that be done? I don't think it could or should be forced. If this whole experiment is truly decentralised than I assume forcing a change like that isn't possible except with witness consensus and a hard fork.
It would have to be a voluntary thing that each Hive account owner chooses to do, and so the real question is why would anyone do that? There would have to be an incentive to do so, but the incentive (the value proposition) cannot be built until enough people move away from the base layer and toward the second-layers. A real chicken-egg problem. Maybe if second-layer tokens were listed on exchanges independently to HIVE and HBD? I guess there's no technical reason preventing this, as there's already ERC-20 tokens listed in places which if I'm not mistaken are second-layer tokens on the Ethereum blockchain.
What you write about auto-voting and blind voting, I absolutely agree. I don't participate in those two things. I prefer manual voting. I wonder though, would using second-layer tokens actually stop these two things? If people decide to, they could still do both on the second-layer, couldn't they? I don't believe there's a technical way to prevent auto-voting without removing voting altogether, except maybe forcing the solution of a CAPTCHA before every vote. Possible but could you imagine... it would make voting pretty onerous.
Sounds like you you've got some ideas for a front-end of your own.
That's the difficult part for sure. Though when you post about those details, please make sure you tag me, I'll be interested to read your ideas!
I went searching for EdenOS and found this:
https://www.edenelections.com/
Is that the one?
I'm far, far, far from an expert on this, but with the DPOS system of Hive, isn't this how witness voting works right now? If you disagree with what a witness is doing, you can remove your vote. You can share your issues, change minds, persuade others to do the same if there's genuine, demonstrable reasons. All governance votes have the same value.
I think the fights would just move to being over the second-layer token distribution if this were the case, rather than disappearing completely.
I really appreciate the discussion we're having, thanks for your time! 😊
Change to chain: Sure we have witnesses and yes we need 50%+1 of the witnesses to grant changes to the blockchain. If you mean such vote is the way forward to change things around our base chain, I agree, provided that we continue with this governance setup.
Witnesses: As long as I'm with our chain ecosystem, I feel most witnesses are engineers, know how to run a node. Some to more of them are not governance specialists. The latter is required to bring our ecosystem to the next level.
Governance: True, we have a governance system in place. Assuming we continue with this setup, our top witnesses allowing (or not) changes to the base chain. How do we figure out what our top witnesses want? Some post some of their ideas. Others don't. We as the users have to dig deep and spend tons of time to understand what our top witnesses want, let alone all the runner-up witnesses. We lack all sorts of tools, like a common, centralised service where we can review all the witnesses' ideas and all, to start with. And when I'm not in touch with what our witnesses want, being more involved than the majority of HIVE users, what will this large group of users do with their witnesses' votes? Also, how often do we change our witness votes? This is a governance problem that needs to be solved in one or the other way. The inventor of HIVE (Dan Larimer), probably understood the shortcoming of HIVE governance, hence I launched EdenOS with a more practical and a more fair governance implementation that forces those who get elected to be re-elected in shorter time periods. By now, he seems to have moved on again, being not in agreement with the direction of EdenOS, and launched Fractally. I never really looked into Fractally, but as far as I know, this is his next iteration of how decentralised governance can be effective. Note that governance is all about making decisions altogether in an active manner, without individuals getting too much power, and/or sitting in the same position for a long time while being not active. Governance has little to do with technology. Technology is just the enabler for governance.
I believe we really need to evaluate what we have in our ecosystem and governance and start making plans to expand on it, and perhaps even change things. Like, determining in consensus what the future of HIVE should be. Like, creating a better and more active governance system; This needs to be much more dynamic. To me, it feels like we have too few visionaries. And even if we have visionaries, we lack the ability to execute. With 'we', I mean the HIVE chain and its ecosystem ;)
An example: I just bought some tokens in presales of some Game that plans to be a massive one. They decided to bypass Ethereum as well as BSC chains for their game. While IMHO Games benefit from using feeless chains, they never heard about HIVE. Last week they brought forward their idea: Polygon. Which chain is out there the longest, by far? Which chain is perhaps better in the long for Games? And still, said project as well as so many others, aren't coming to HIVE. For many reasons, I believe.
Your thought-provoking post on the future of Network States, Hive, and the broader implications of decentralized ledger technology has been truly enlightening. Before encountering your article, I was unaware that there was such definition in the concept of Network States, but your perspective has led me to spend a significant amount of time researching and contemplating this fascinating idea.
My own project, DiggnDeeper, is centered around exploring principles similar to those underlying Network States. As a result, your post has not only expanded my knowledge but also provided valuable insights that I can apply to my own endeavors. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to learn and think about these concepts and how they relate to the future of digital sovereignty and decentralized communities.
As you mentioned, monetary independence through blockchain technology has been a game-changer for the concept of digital sovereignty and allows communities to define their own values and governance structures. This decentralization of power is at the heart of the movement, and it's essential for projects like Hive to remain faithful to these principles.
Your concerns about the potential risks of attempting to fit Hive into a larger narrative and placing it under an infrastructure-provider umbrella are valid. We need to recognize that our primary strength lies in bottom-up organization and community-driven approach. Instead of trying to encompass other entities or dilute core principles, projects should focus on strengthening and expanding our own communities.
To ensure that we remain at the forefront of the Network States movement, it's crucial for us to regularly engage in discussions like this one. By reflecting on our goals, values, and progress, we can continue to evolve in a way that stays true to our founding principles while also adapting to a rapidly changing world. How else can we remain vigilant and focused? Hive even offers us the incentive.
I believe that our community should focus on solidifying our position as decentralized and sovereign while also remaining open to collaboration with like-minded projects. By doing so, we can continue to thrive as Network States that are grounded in our core values and dedicated to fostering a sense of ownership and belonging amongst our members.
#hivemarketing
I'm happy to read that my posts impacted your reality this way.
I mean, Hive is a still great infrastructure provided technology, however this is a limiting and not really sexy narrative to go on with. We should diverge marketing channels, depending on the target. But pitching Hive as an infrastructer provider for Network States is my concern.
Big agree on the rest of your comment. Thank you for your input!
Congratulations @deepresearch! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 40000 upvotes.
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
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Network States. Very interesting concept I will need to dig into further.
Podcast link for anyone interested:
https://thenetworkstate.com/podcast
As for monetary independence, I think Hive hasn't arrived there yet. The foundation exists in the design of the technology, but as for right now, I don't know that anyone is buying food for their families or paying utility bills with HIVE or HBD. Not directly. Indirectly is the only way, by selling through exchanges for fiat. Which in so doing weakens the network in the aggregate.
Of course, this general issue is true for all cryptocurrencies.
I agree that Hive is well ahead of the curve in it's journey to independence but we still have a way to go before it's a separate, self-sustaining economy. This is necessary to satisfy a definition of monetary independence in my view, but I'm interested in hearing yours.
Full Hive economy might be impossible to achieve in an environment of multiple network and nation states cooexisting, there will always be somebody outside demanding exchanging currency to accept payment. Only Hive beiny layer 1 for all economical activity all there (technically seems to be possible but IMO very unlikely) could guarantee such model. This is an emergent phenomenon coming from huge network effect.
Monetary independence is about something else. It's about group of people being in touch with their currency and its workings. Having direct stake and interest in this currency. Having opt-in, opt-out possibility of ecosystem and changing it to another one. Hive direct influence by voting with stake to vote for witnessess who also have a stake in system which incentives them for making decisions in favor of the best interest of currency and community.
In legacy financial system these incentives are decoupled and fiat currency doesn't actually belong to people using it. Non-electable institutions can with one decision change any parameter and ibfluence life of milliones without any responsibility. Having monetary independence is having ability to opt-out from this pathology.
I agree, but I'm not meaning 100% Hive Global Economic Domination when I talk about this independence. I mean self-sufficiency moreso. Putting aside the impossibility of it happening, because I agree with you there as well, total domination by anything to the extinguishment of all else would be undesirable and destructive, even if it was Hive doing that domination.
Hive is just inert code without the community of individuals behind it. When we're at a point where people can in-turn support themselves by interacting only within the Hive economy would we have the kind of indepedence I mean. I think I understand now that we're talking about two different concepts and what I'm saying is possibly better described as Economic Independence. Thank you for clarifying, I really do appreciate it.
However, I also think the two are intimately linked. Consider how you say:
We are in absolute agreement that this is a bad thing.
My point is that yes, we can opt-out with Hive as it is now, but that opting out is pretty abstract, because on a long enough timescale any one of us will be forced to opt-in again in order to feed and house ourselves.
I am an historian by passion and by lifelong education. I have studied government for as long as I've been alive, I've seen the rise and downfall of city-states and now, nation-states.
Both models depended on centralized power controlling everything around it. The concept of a Network State completely throws that away and presents a new, innovative approach. I'd like to see more of a fleshed out proposal as to how it might work in practice.
I say that, because this reminds me of the original concept underpinning the Cosmos Ecosystem & Hub. Open-source, SDK, buildable, but, too much centralized control over the $ATOM token limits Cosmos' ability to serve as a Network State.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta