The whale vote on the Hive DAO (the DHF)'s return proposal was a hot topic with users of the protocol over the past couple of weeks. You see, a DAO (a Decentralized Autonomous Organization) by definition does not have a central entity that controls it. So mechanisms like the return proposal, or threshold proposal are used to determine which proposals in the DHF get funded and which don't. Anything with more votes than the return proposal gets funded and anything with less votes doesn't. As you can imagine, when the return proposal gets voted on with lots of HP, it's harder for a proposal the get funding as it will need more support from stakeholders.
To be clear, anybody with a Hive account can acquire Hive Power (HP) and vote.
I'm personally a strong supporter of the return proposal as I believe no proposals deserve funding from the DHF. Most proposals that receive $HBD from the DHF convert it to HIVE, send that HIVE to an exchange and convert it to Euros, or whichever local fiat currency they need to spend. This drives the price of HIVE down.
On the other hand, projects don't do a very good job in showing how they spent the funds and also don't provide periodic results of the benefit that their proposal had on the protocol.
Well, a few weeks ago, a large HIVE POWER holder, decided to cast his vote on the return proposal, bringing the threshold to receive funding up to 60,582,295 HP, meaning only a few proposals would receive funding. Not impossible, just harder.
As expected, many users of the protocol ran to their keyboards to angrily smash those keys complaining about how this was wrong! and evidence that the Hive protocol faces "centralization issues" because a single HP holder shouldn't be able to get so many DHF proposals defunded.
I disagree.
And to explain my point, let me start with an analogy.
Imagine you’re at a family barbacue. In a centralized system, one
person —let’s say the host— brings all the food, controls who gets what, and decides when it’s served. Everyone depends on that one host. Let' call him The Soup Nazi.
Now, in a decentralized system like HIVE, there’s no single host. Instead, lots of people bring dishes to share, and everyone helps serve and keep things running.
This doesn't mean everybody has the same thing in the same amount though!
Some might show up with a huge lasagna, while others just bring a bag of chips. Some might have bigger serving spoons or better spots at the table and some might get dessert while others get none.
Decentralization means there’s no central authority calling the shots, not that everyone has equal stuff or equal influence. In the case of HIVE, the system is spread across hundreds of computers (nodes and witnesses) as well as Hive Power holders, so no single person or group can control it outright. But yeah, concentration happens: some folks own more HIVE (like early adopters or "whales") just like the bitcoin protocol where some miners have more hash power because they’ve got bigger setups. Think industrial mining rigs versus a laptop in someone's basement. That’s just the reality of how resources and incentives play out.
So, when you hear or read "decentralized," think "spread out and not owned by one boss," not "everyone’s got the same slice of the pie." It’s about reducing single points of failure and control, even if some players end up with more sway due to their investment or timing.
Disagree with a whale?
No problem. Open your wallet, head to your nearest exchange and buy some HIVE to power up and vote in the opposite direction. Bring your friends too!
It only takes 10 orcas with 50,000 HP each to outvote a 500,000 HP whale.
That's what I'm doing :)
