Aligning on 1Hive direction, Organisational Apps take priority

Aligning on 1Hive direction

Pre-requisite reading: Aligning on narrative and high level direction

Suggestion in 1Hive Garden: Proposal #72

It’s been a while since Luke made the above call to the community to try and establish a shared vision for 1Hive going forward. There wasn’t a great deal of response to his call and since then the value of Honey has continued to diminish and contributors have continued to leave or become inactive. Considering this and the increasing fragmentation of 1Hive into many unrelated projects and self-governed swarms, some change is necessary if 1Hive is not only interested in surviving but also thriving.

Refocussing on organisational apps

From the beginning 1Hive was always about building and experimenting with inclusive organisational infrastructure. The core of this infrastructure is now represented as Gardens and Celeste. These are the necessary components for continuing this grand experiment. Without them 1Hive has very little future. There are many swarms within 1Hive that support these applications and there are many that, although promising and useful in their own ways, do not.

Considering the limited resources we currently have available I think it’s paramount that as a community we refocus our attention on these core applications until we’re in a more sustainable position. A sustainable position is one where Honey is a desirable asset and the best chance we have at making that the case is by popularising whatever requires Honey to use. Celeste requires dispute creators to pay for those disputes in Honey and users of Gardens (which cost Honey to deploy) are incentivised to stake to Celeste to potentially have a say in disputes that arrise. Ultimately Celeste is the most likely to create the biggest demand for Honey, since users of any applications that rely on it are incentivised to want to be involved in potential disputes which requires they stake Honey to it.

Current efforts to make Celeste more widely used include Gardens (including a Garden involving Maroon5’s NFT’s), Quests, and a developing collaboration with Gitcoin. We have also explored integrating with Gnosis Omen and building a function naming registry in the past. Beyond this it has been suggested we liase with other DAO’s or crowdsale platforms to see how we can integrate Celeste into their processes. If we can establish applications that rely on Celeste and are used regularly we will create a sustainable demand for Honey.

Gardens and Celeste have a unique advantage relative to our competitors and if we put in the effort there is a chance we can maintain this advantage and have our platform become a significantly more popular approach to building and maintaining organisations.

Defunding Tulip

Tulip was a great experiment but unfortunately it wasn’t able to mature quick enough to compete with established defi projects with which it provided an almost identical experience. It ultimately created very little return and efforts to reestablish it haven’t been successful. Unless there’s clear evidence that suggests funding Tulip will generate a return then it shouldn’t receive further funding.

Anyone working on or hoping to work on Tulip should consider joining the Gardens and Celeste channels to see where they can help out. There are many marketing, engineering and design tasks.

See the the latest Tulip proposal for current discussion.

Increasing proposal difficulty

We have an Issuance process that constantly pumps out Honey but that doesn’t mean we have an infinite amount of money. Unfortunately we don’t have the resources (money or man power) right now to support projects that aren’t explicitly creating a demand for Honey. Ofcourse the Honey distribution created through the support of unrelated projects in the past is largely what has made this community what it is, and one day soon it would be great to return to that, but not until 1Hive is in a sustainable financial position.

In the mean time we should raise the minimum threshold for passing proposals in the 1Hive Garden. This will have the effect of reducing fragmentation in the community and encouraging a more explicit focus on the smaller set of applications discussed above. Proposals will also increase in quality and require more consensus. This will also reduce governance overhead by the wider community as more decisions will be delegated to swarms. Specific values will be discussed in a separate post.

Vesting earnt Honey

There has been a lot of issues keeping contributors due to lower than average pay. We should increase payments to individuals in swarms made in Honey by some amount (perhaps ~25% but open to discussion) but also establish a vesting process for payments in Honey that all swarms are happy to subscribe to. This will encourage consistent contributions that attempt to provide value. The approach taken to creating a vesting process will be discussed in a separate post.


Our dream is to make 1Hive a sustainable and thriving ecosystem that provides people with the tools necessary to enable them to provide the value they have to the world in a sustainable way. In building 1Hive we have experimented with being an open and inclusive community that encourages projects from all different domains to build with us. Now it is time to prioritise projects that are explicitly focussed on creating a sustainable demand for Honey, at least until Honey is clearly in demand and the contributor base is reestablished. In other words, this is a call to all 1Hive contributors to focus on projects that will explicitly generate a return in the short to medium term.

Please share your thoughts and consider staking to this suggestion in the 1Hive Garden and we will attempt to refine this short to medium term vision. Alternatively consider forking this proposal and creating a separate signalling proposal as suggested in Luke’s original post.


Thank you @willjgriff to reignite this important conversation. I agree with the direction outlined and I want to reaffirm the importance of taking action sooner than later.

I would like to add my feedback on a few of the points:

  • On Increasing proposal difficulty I think it would be beneficial to schedule a call to discuss the new settings and invite the General Magic team to guide us while we play around with the Conviction Voting module of the Commons dashboard. A similar process to what BrightID did a few days ago. cc @griffgreen
  • On Refocussing on organisational apps I strongly agree that this should be the main focus of 1Hive going forward. Though I believe there are some exceptions that are currently creating a lot of bang for their buck. A clear example is 1Hive TV. Before cutting these initiatives right away let’s gather more tangible data about expenditure vs value generated. Ideally a detailed report in the lines of what @boring877 did at the beginning of the year in combination with some further analytics like the ones created by @hernandoagf on 1Hive dune dashboard.
  • On Vesting earnt Honey I agree 1000%. I think this is going to be a wide problem for every Garden DAO. In my opinion, we should prioritize this initiative because it both attracts new contributors and reduces the Honey outflow rate.

I agree with pretty much everything you state on this post, I think it’s the best thing for us to have the greatest focus on the things we know and do better. I just want to add something:

I think we’ve had plenty of discussions about that topic over these months and ultimately on my funding proposal, The value proposition is clear enough, if we decide to not continue with it should be because we consider it’s not the best time, not because it doesn’t provide enough value.

The only thing I’d request is that there’s some action plan considered within this proposal so if it reaches enough conviction there’s a clear way to go forward with the farms, unlocking, waiting, idk, but wouldn’t like to see that not taken into consideration.


There is a problem for Dex in regulation in upcoming months " know your customer" law.

I am just wonder if that’s going hit crypto space, how we going deal with it ?

sorry , but maybe we are a bit late for Dex. crypto moves fast due it nature. spending more money on honeyswap might be not the right move.

we need more assessment ~


I agree on aligning the direction of 1Hive and how it should move forward but i don’t think Tulip should not be included with how we move forward. The new initiative of Tulip is to align better and integrate with the our app ecosystem and it is even part of Gardens when creating your initial pair. Defunding or not having support for that is overall a bad user experience as well as a non competitive one at that. Capturing the initial 100 dollar pairing to hny could lead to bigger liquidity addition and volume thus generating fees for us. Also with the new plans of re-configuring the contracts for honeycomb would allow for new garden DAOs to create farming initiatives fairly easily including multi reward farming which has proven to provide stability on farming rewards.

As per the vesting schedule i think it would be really smart for contributors to have some sort of bond towards the work so im all for it.


I think in order for tullip to be part of the 1hive vision for the near to mid term future it needs to be really well presented to the community with numbers, a well formed roadmap and the ability from the team behind to execute it.

What i mean with this is: How tullip with their roadmap is planning to increase the HNY usage + HNY value what will increase our reserve to make 1hive the hub for running experiments and all kind of initiatives like it was 1 year ago.


The proposal @eenti put up has all the related links and roadmaps check here Tulip Funding Proposal

1 Like

When I read the first draft of this post there was no mention of Tulip, and although I agree overall with the content of it (realigning efforts towards Gardens and Celeste, increasing proposal difficulty and vesting honey), I think adding Tulip to the discussion is unfortunate and adds noise that do not let us see the big picture.

I think this post should be an open invitation for all swarms, not only Tulip, to present a viable way to make their activities sustainable. Please refer to the Tulip Proposal in order to continue the discussion there.

What we should be discussing here are three things:

  • How do we boost the initiatives that have potential to make the most use of honey and we have more developed, aka, Gardens and Celeste?
  • How do we generate new ways to make use of honey? It’s an open question to the swarms, there is a way in which your products can make use of it or support a product that makes use of it?
  • How do we make honey locking appealing for enough time so we earn time to make honey more valuable? Would vesting on earned honey work?

I’m interested in providing solutions to these three questions, and I would hear from the rest of you as well.


Unlocking the Farms requires a Decision proposal.

1 Like

That was the initial plan, iirc the transfer of permissions never happened so the multisig still controls the locking. If there are any plans to get rid of Honeyswap they should absolutely contemplate the people locked in the farms.

1 Like

Are you sure the permission transfer never happened?
And whether it did or not, that’s still the process for unlocking the farms.
This has been hashed out already.

1 Like

I’m not 100% sure but I remember that being said in a conversation when I was digging information for the wiki update.

1 Like

The transfer has to happen and the proper vote needs to be made.
That is what is in the wiki as the process.
There seems to be a misconception that because the rules weren’t actually followed yet that it’s ok to change them.

It is not.

In our documentation a method for unlocking Farms is lain out.
This method should be used.

Before I was PM of Tulip swarm Ceres asked and was answered that the actual procedure must be followed. When I became PM I put that ball in motion, to transfer permissions.

Whether it occurred or not I don’t know.
I know there were some issues, but I thought they had been resolved.

In any case, us failing to follow procedure in a timely manner does not mean we get to bypass it.

If you want the Farms unlocked the first step is to make sure the permissions have been transferred so that the proper vote can be implemented to do it.

This isn’t Binance.


I don’t think the point is that Tulip is a lost cause but with the limited resources 1Hive has it should try to specialize and focus on a contained set of technologies, in this case governance and organizational dapps.

DeFi is a promising sector within crypto but if 1Hive focuses its energy on one domain I think it’ll be much more effective and cost efficient.


I agree with this and @sem proposal to allow swarms to present how their swarm will align with the higher vision.

I don’t agree with this. The proposal looks to be passing. We should focus on moving forward with making proposals harder if that’s the approach not generically defunding or saying no to an idea. Maybe for a longer conversation but my understanding of gardens voting is there is no ‘No’ vote and a blanket defunding seems to conflict with this idea of there being no ‘No’ vote.

I am not completely opposed to this but I believe 1hive still struggles with the bootstrapping of liquidity. very debatable I know, but most projects don’t hesitate to drop millions on treasury management like d2d swapping or even doing something like buying discounted hny in exchange for 1year vested hny. I think each proposal is different and I don’t yet know how to best address this but I can easily support a project like a d2d swap of $1M but may critique a $20k proposal offering some service. Reason is because there typically is no sell pressure and large exposure to the reserve diversification programs. meanwhile services can result in 100% sell pressure. I think 1hive struggles with the important treasury management type initiatives and if “increasing proposal difficulty” not done correctly this approach could make it even harder. Take the fox-hny swap. they wanted to do as trial a $1M swap but we had to pass 2 proposals requesting 350 each just to pair only 15-20% of what was requested by shapeshift.

I would still like to see an Olympus Pro or Ohm fork (not the ponzi single side staking 10,000% APY but the selling of something like an eth-xdai pair to 1hive in exchange for a 1 year vested hny at a discount.


DeFi is the main focus orgs and groups would use our tools for, seeing that 90% of the current web3 projects surround that im still strong on my position of the new Tulip roadmap and how it will benefit the whole ecosystem internally and externally.

I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say here.

I could go through it point by point but then people would just think I’m being a harpie.

You said you were shocked…

Shocked what?

Then you listed a bunch of things.

But I don’t know what the importance of any of these things is, if or how they demonstrate your premise, what your premise is other than you’re shocked, or how any of it relates to Tulip being important.

You have no statistics.
You throw down some numbers in partnerships, but you don’t even begin to explain how they help 1Hive, Honeyswap, or Honey.

What I’ve seen is that we’ve lost money hand over fist in the Farms, as DAO and as individuals. That you can say you’re shocked people don’t see the value of Tulip after the beating we’ve taken in Honey price, dex income, or the sheer MILLIONS AND MILLIONS lost because of the Farms…
Tulip has broken us.

Pouring more money in and creating more “partnerships” isn’t the answer.
You’re proposing to do exactly what Tulip was doing before.

1 Like

Merry Christmas, please can we have this discussion on discord.


Guess I’m a bit late to the party but I wanted to share some thoughts…thanks for making the time for this post @willjgriff :sunflower:

Re: Focus on Organizational Apps
From my perspective, the greatest strength of 1Hive is its long-term thinking about governance and how to create systems to properly steward liquid democracy. This is what our DAO is known for; it’s standing in the community is based upon it and our priorities should reflect this, imo. The Gardens/Celeste system offers something unique because it was built ahead of the interest curve.

:point_up: This is the tweet, so to speak : ) …there have been on/off discussions about hosting a hackathon-type event to kickstart adoption of Celeste; @philogy was the first person I recall talking about it. Is there any way we could parlay with the buidl week at ETH Denver? If not, perhaps we can find a way to collaborate with Gardens partners to get the ball rolling on how to incentivize creative thinking that leads to adoption.

On a related note, if the the larger goal is to put resources into projects that create new use cases for HNY, we don’t want to narrow the scope of swarm activities too far. There are many ways to accomplish this goal, and I believe 1Hive TV serves as an example. The project has already started to generate revenue, a portion of which should be used to benefit the DAO directly. There are a number of ways to do this and a dedicated community conversation is warranted in the near future. For example, on the trivia front - we had over 100 ppl in the server for the UMA game on the 17th, 59 of whom joined as live contestants. These numbers have steadily grown with each game and when the time is right (perhaps season 3), we can consider implementing a setup that requires contestants to hold a certain NFT to play that they can only mint with HNY…as the game pots increase so does the quantity of HNY required to mint, or something like that. Point being - as we build an audience, 1Hive TV will be able to spin off new use cases for HNY that scale.

Re: Defunding Tulip
I go around telling everyone that Honeyswap was the first Uni v1 fork deployed off mainnet. Why? Because I think its cool af as a historical milestone in crypto and 1Hive made it happen.

However, it is my understanding that the initial deployment of Honeyswap was more out of necessity than a desire to become a DeFi innovator on xDai. Please correct me if I’m wrong here, I only raise it to provide context for the larger directional decisions raised in this thread. We now live in a world where there are multiple DEXes on every sidechain/L2; so any competitive advantage that Honeyswap may have enjoyed at one point in time no longer exists.

In my opinion, we should take stock of our new environment [Gnosis Chain]. It seems likely that new efforts will be made to attract liquidity to Cow Swap; assuming CS becomes a leading DEX due to support from Gnosis and its MEV resistance feature, is 1Hive better off continuing to put resources into maintaining/improving Honeyswap? …or should we seek partnerships that could accomplish the same liquidity goals while directing common pool funding towards Gardens/Celeste that offer differentiation in the DAO tooling space? I don’t feel strongly enough either way to take a clear position…but that probably means I don’t know enough about the tradeoffs. Continued [respectful] debate seems in the interest of 1Hive. :honeybee:

If there is one thing I know for certain it is that Gnosis Chain will present new opportunities, and 1Hive should position itself as well as possible to take advantage of them.

Re: Increasing Proposal Difficulty
Agree here, but degree matters - could we think about providing several options for the community to choose from?

Re: HNY Vesting
Similar to proposal difficulty - I agree in spirit and would like to participate in debating specific vesting parameters.


Broadly agree with @gabi and @twells points here - I’ll just add a couple thoughts:


Honeyswap on xDai gets steady use (it broke $5.5M in weekly volume last week for the first time since June) and at the very least we should be funding its maintenance. I do think Honeyswap is itself an Organizational App since, as shown in the Veneto Garden setup, DAOs need liquidity to function. Very excited to see what comes out of @eenti 's work on this - I think in our heads we can fully disassociate future Honeyswap work with the past Tulip swarm.

Proposal Difficulty

I agree that it seems too easy to pass proposals at 1Hive. We’re at 2.5% minimum conviction now - I’d support an increase to 5%.

Thank you for making this happen Will! This is long overdue.