Long productive asset blockchain projects
Short pie-in-the-sky promise projects with anonymous founders and 50k egg profile picture followers on Twitter.
I think this crypto readjustment has people pivoting out of disappointing top 10 crypto projects and into more quality projects, like xDAI/GNO or HNY.
Heartening to see HNY back up:)
I wonder if this will shift priorities, as token price being down for a while has introduced scarcity into the conversation, and influenced discussion of priorities.
Thank you everyone for your responses, it seems there is rough agreement on all suggestions besides defunding Tulip. To be clear Honeyswap on xDai should not be deprecated and maintenance to ensure it operates as it does currently should be prioritised, but new features should not, as thereâs no clear evidence that they will create significantly more demand for Honey which is absolutely necessary at this stage of our development. Also it must be understood that liquidity matching with other organisations has no relationship to Tulip and doesnât require Tulip to orchestrate.
I disagree, Tulip is one of the main areas 1Hive bees are actively seeking funds for and it requires a lot of resources (funds and workers) so it must be discussed.
There is no explicit âNoâ vote, but that is why this post has been made, as we absolutely have to prioritise things that will create a significant return and sustain Honey in the short to medium term, which Tulip does not in its current form.
No it isnât. This is clear from the established organisations deploying Gardens (BrightId, Giveth, Maroon5) and others using our org infrastructure (TEC, Gitcoin). To build, maintain and sell novel DeFi products that would attract the same amount of interest is far too large a lift and wonât generate the return expected, especially considering our competitors on xDai, eg Cowswap.
Correct, this is why we deployed Uniswap to xDai. @lkngtn Took the lead on pursuing wider DeFi projects on xDai which is why he set up Tulip but unfortunately his interest, amongst others in the community including mine and any competent solidity engineers, ultimately diminished. In my case it was because it never managed to have the competitive edge it needed in terms of effective coordination as well as interest from the wider crypto community, necessary for adoption. Note that without competent Solidity engineers, which Tulip currently lacks as pointed out here, very little that would provide significant value can be built.
Of course organisations need liquidity and a place to exchange value, but for most organisations thatâs as far as it goes and Honeyswap in itâs current form provides this.
This shouldnât shift priorities, Honey doubled in value over the period of a few hours, it can halve in value in the same amount of time.
Liquidity matching is the best we can do since we canât provide dual farming rewards which has been a sentiment in every single meeting. Sorry Will but with all due respect you have not been in any of those so you donât really know what you are talking about.
I think you misunderstood the point i was trying to make. The vast majority of projects out there are DeFi, the project you have listed that are using Gardens are teams that have been partners with 1Hive for a very long time. Are you saying that we donât want DeFi related projects to use our tools?
The most recent Tulip proposal doesnât include the development of farms. And the Solidity project you suggest forking here: Tulip Funding Proposal - #6 by D0SH is big, will need to be understood and may not even suit your needs. If it is itâs also likely to require some changes to meet whatever needs you expect to have and afaik there isnât anyone capable of working on that. Even if there was, the return for developing farms at this stage doesnât seem to be worth the cost given the limited details regarding potential partnerships shared in posts.
No, obviously not. But DeFi projects arenât in need of more DeFi tools, theyâre in need of organisational primitives.
The most recent proposal has various links in it one including a Roadmap. 3rd on the list is dual rewards Ideas for a Honeyswap roadmap. As for the contract side of things we are going with these ones as they have various audits and are being studied by @saltorious to implement.We also have the support of the team that wrote them to help us out if needed. You are welcome to join the Tulip call and see what is being planned.
I agree here, but why limit the ability features one can have? Last call @gabi spoke up a longer term future for Gardens were we could build out tools similar to how gnosis has integrated apps. These defi tools will be falling under that category of tooling as they will be offered to garden daos.
In this context it seems very much that the diy farms should be part of the Gardens protocol, especially since one of our goals is to help DAOs generate and maintain liquidity, our own included.
Which brings me to this:
What exactly does this mean?
Where is the Honey currently going?
Thank-you,
metađ
Come for the Honey 
.
Stay for the Bees 
.
I wouldnât mind, my only concern and everything Iâve been talking about was just to not let Honeyswap die, Iâm ok with whatever.
Theyâre actually going to the common pool and I thought that would be nice to receive them directly to cover maintenance expenses.
Anyways I donât think the change will happen.
I indeed consider that Gardens could and eventually should integrate new tools that are valuable for every existing Garden. I may not explain myself clearly though. I donât think the same model that worked for Gnosis where they allow integrations with every available dapps is a good alternative for Gardens. As I believe both have two separate goals as products.
On one hand, Gnosis became the default multi-sig vault where a DAO could manage their funds with a well-tested and extensible solution.
On the other hand, Gardens allow communities to disburse a common pool of funds in a bottom-up way, giving everyone in the community a voice.
I am not sure which other tool could be included in Gardens at this point. And I am still skeptical that a DeFi tool would win vs a new organization primitive. Happy to be proven wrong.
I think in general all tools we could come up with that DAOs could use are good tools, i donât think one can beat the other one as they are not measured in the same scope. What i do know is defi tools that we allow other DAOs to use in conjunction with Honeyswap will bring in revenues for 1hive(note we are talkin about DIY farms for other DAOs to create pairs and reward tokens).
As far the general direction of how we see Gardens and how we can improve it for the future cant be limited by 1 party. Everyone may have their own perception but we all have a common goal.
Iâm thinking, and I may be wrong, that the objection is that a Tulip swarm with a direct revenue feed from Honeyswap, especially when half of Honeyswapâs revenue is diverted to questionable COMB buybacks, is an extreme overreach.
The current proposal, in my opinion, is tone deaf to the issues that tanked Tulip in the first place.
Honeyswap does not exist to be a revenue stream for Tulip swarm.
Letâs define our goals and the value of the goals outside of the context of tapping into the 50% of Honeyswapâs income that still goes to the common pool.
For everyone that is interested in this subject there is a call scheduled tomorrow. Please see event on Discord
Not when we donât have the resources to produce them. We need to focus on the highest leverage tools until weâre in a more sustainable position.
It isnât limited by one party. Weâve been planning and refining Gardens and all the individual features for years through regular discussion and experimentation amongst many parties.
We have a full team ready and capable and have passed a proposal so again not sure were u are getting this sentiment. Can you expand on this? Also when you say the highest leverage are you saying that our governance tools are what brought people in? From my recollection the vast majority of people joined 1Hive for Honeyswap as well as the faucet not for CV and later on Celeste.
The gardens team may have planed and built what they have right now, but you are claiming âweâ as in who?? I certainly im not for limiting peoples ideas that are viable. I mean the idea of a DAO is to have a wide variety of views, and input so i donât see how you and the people that have built gardens can decide what can be added when its a product that the whole community owns. It really sounds here that whatever the gardens team decide is what is best for all of 1Hive without taking into consideration other members views.
This is what I see as the biggest challenge we face. The economics of HNY arenât as important as cleaning up information streams and making it clear what we offer, what our apps are, where our funds are allocated and what is happening around the DAO. This needs to be clear and simple for someone who has just found 1hive, but right now it is clear that it is difficult for even the veterans to have a grasp on everything going on.
Letâs not chuck the baby out with the bathwater, but definitely organising better should definitely be a priority going forward.
Finally, I wanted to state my opinion that our DAO took a big hit in terms of interest and interaction when XDAI stagnated. This more than anything else saw our growth stop. Now that Gnosis have merged and rebranded I am hopeful we can see growth on the chain start again and more demand come across for the whole ecosystem.
You have a full team of strong in Solidity defi developers?
Who?
My entire issue with Tulip swarm was that process, transparency, and community involvement were all lacking. It was clearly a misunderstanding, but I see recent Tulip proposals attempting to pick up with exactly what blew that swarm up. Hopefully the call tomorrow will clear up some missing communication.
The capability of which is unproven and considering previous attempts and the diminishing value of Honey at this stage itâs too risky.
Which is great but right now what matters is what will create a demand for the Honey token.
Weâre not dictating what can and canât be added, the arguments for Tulip have been laid out but theyâre not convincing enough.
Iâd like to add, regarding branding, that there is a misconception in the space that the Tulip swarm was a rugpull operation. Iâve been dmâed on Twitter about it, and we see some chatter on Telegram as well.
I donât know if this means we should use the name Tulip and make things right or eschew the name.
My strong opinion is now that the things are built and just need modifying and maintaining, if that, that a swarm is no longer needed.
Additionally, in my opinion it was a huge overreach for Tulip to attempt to take control of Honeyswap, including access to all of Honeyswapâs resources.
As @lkngtn suggested for how we can reach a high level direction for 1Hive, Iâm proposing a fork of Willâs post. Quoted sections below are taken directly from the original.
Hereâs the proposal in the Honey Pot.
To summarize the changes:
Aligning on 1Hive direction
Pre-requisite reading: Aligning on narrative and high level direction
Suggestion in 1Hive Garden: Proposal #72
Itâs been a while since Luke made the above call to the community to try and establish a shared vision for 1Hive going forward. There wasnât 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.
We have an Issuance process that constantly pumps out Honey but that doesnât mean we have an infinite amount of money. Unfortunately we donât have the resources (money or man power) right now to support projects that arenât explicitly creating a demand for Honey. Of course 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.
The price of HNY has been hurt by our current funding system where core contributors are paid in HNY, which they then need to sell to pay their bills. Our most pressing need at 1Hive is a compensation system that does the following:
A sustainable compensation plan for 1Hive includes a combination of Bounties, Basic Income for core contributors paid in stablecoins, and retroactive vesting HNY. A key component of this strategy is growing a stablecoin treasury so that contributors can pay for life expenses without selling HNY. Relevant forum post.
Until we have a better compensation plan that supports the price of HNY, we abstain from proposals that arenât critical to our long term vision (laid out below), or have a clear track record of creating value for 1Hive.
Increasing proposal difficulty
We 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 below. 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.
Refocusing 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 itâs paramount that as a community we refocus our attention on these core applications until weâre 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 Maroon5âs NFTâs), 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 DAOâs 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.
Conclusion
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.
