I know that. But nevertheless I had some time to think and have thought of a couple ideas that, if they are not too complicated to integrate, could be very productive.

I would like to argue against some ideas before I suggest any, however.

New communities type where members can only post and comment or where guests can only comment while members post

I know this idea would be keeping in line with the progression of most other sites, but that doesn't mean it isn't a bad idea. Dangerous ideas, that infect people with dangerous beliefs, that lead them to behave in dangerous ways, must be challenged. And this idea, if implemented, will create an environment where people will be able to publish bullshit and use their influence to make it trend. And no one will be able to question the bullshit or point out why it is dangerous, of if they do it will have to be in a separate post and community that will likely not trend.

Comment moderation by the community is one thing, but comment moderation and censorship at the author level is problematic. You cannot go into the city centre with microphone and start propagating bad ideas, and then simply mute those who speak up against your position. Nor should you be able to silence another who would seek to scrutinise your ideas on the internet. So I ask you to please reconsider whether this idea, if implemented, will really create the sort of environment that the community wants.

Mandatory beneficiaries (if you don't post with the good beneficiaries, the post is automatically muted)

I don't even know what this means and yet it sounds even more troubling. We already have the ability to downvote and consequently mute posts. This idea (unless I am not understanding it correctly and if so please direct me to a post where I can get better acquainted with what a beneficiary is and how it all works) seems to be suggesting the community cannot be trusted to curate content and so we should have to trust that "good beneficiaries" know what posts or information we should be permitted to look at or not. It is by a similar type of notion that YouTube, Facebook and Twitter justify the censoring of even expert opinions that contradict with the "official story." Surely, we would want to be setting a better example. It is by being better than the rest that this ecosystem will eventually become the home of the millions who are abandoning other platforms for overreaching and limiting public expression.

Community human names instead of ids (very hard)

This isn't really difficult to implement, if the human gets to input their own name and that's the end of it. The difficulty I am sure comes from wanting not just human names but KYC human verified names. But I really hope we are not going down this road. I have lost money I very much needed for refusing to submit to these ridiculous hoops, where I must upload personal documents and take photos of myself from several angles (apparently in the name of my security, but quite clearly to do with facial recognition) and that is not a secure thing to be doing, it is the opposite.

The option should of course be there, for people to show who they are and verify by some means if they would like to - so you could have verified accounts for people claiming to be well known figures. But, it is another problem in my opinion to start demanding everyone verify their identity. What if a free speech advocate in a country where speaking against the government wants to use this platform to anonymously speak out against the crimes of their governments etc? People should always have a choice, and by demanding everyone submit to bio-metric identity verification protocols simply to access the site - that choice is being stripped away for a great many.

I do not know what sort of pressure hive or those who essentially run it may be under to comply with, let's just say it, New World Order style rules and regulations that are being pushed practically everywhere around the world right now - and I am sure people who hold a lot of hive want to be sure that all the exchanges are willing to sell hive and no problems will arise in the future in this regard - but sometimes you have to make a fucking stand, and sometimes people are just waiting for someone, or some group, or some business to make a stand so that they can follow suit. So I would just ask that any new rules or protocols you enact here, that you would do so, or the witnesses would vote for, from a place of courage and of a desire to see the community not only prosper as a population but set an example for other platforms too, rather than from a place of fear or submission.

If I haven' t even understood those last two suggestions and have gone off on an unnecessary tangent, then forgive me.

A couple ideas

How difficult would it be to implement a system that allows people to invest in communities directly? Communities often have agendas, or projects they would like to initiate or expand. What if there was a way, similar to kickstarter, for community leaders to propose projects to be funded, or run charity campaigns, so that they could raise money directly from the community, a large portion of which I imagine would end up being projects aimed at improving on or expanding the reach and influence of the platform or communities that exist within it?

Or, maybe it isn't funds a community is hoping to garner. Perhaps they are looking for a team, and can run a campaign to attract a like minded dev, artist, or writer etc that is willing to help with the proposed project.

We definitely would not want people getting scammed as that would tarnish the reputation of the community and platform, and I don't know how difficult it would be to essentially escrow all proceeding transactions to be sure the funds were spent as they ought to be by the holder of the campaign, but one way that we could insure people's contributions is by a deposit being needed to be put down by the community, equal to the amount needing to be raised, so that if the funds are not spent as indicated, the contributors can be reimbursed. (this could also be gamed for a profit with foreknowledge of market prices I suppose but I don't really think anything cannot be gamed and any solution offered to that, will likely be gameable, so someone smarter than I would need to think about this, but I like the idea).

Also, I am not sure about this one, but it just came to mind so I will share it anyway. What if, every time you created a community, you were also creating a currency. So for example, I go right now and create a community called @bestcommunityintheworld. When I do that, I receive, 22,000,000 (I just like the number 22, no specific reason for that number).

Now those tokens represent shares in the community, and perhaps, 22% of every single post made in that community - the rewards are divided between the holders of the coin (at the moment, that would be me). But, then I can send out my coins to creators and authors I like to incentive's them to start publishing content in my community, and I can put half or more for sale on the market so that others can invest in the community for a share of the rewards from all content published within the communities (and perhaps also dividends from projects funded within the community).

I think an idea like this will provide opportunity to even those who wield no influence, to capitalise upon brilliant ideas without having to submit to conditions proposed by more influential members of the community. And perhaps, creating more avenues for low-influence members of the community to make something of themselves or of their ideas, is exactly what we need to do to fight back against the inclination for people to behave in sycophantic ways towards influential members of the community, which is a far more destructive force in any community than I think most people realise.

Ideas that empower good ideas, regardless of the influence wielded by the author of said idea, would create a useful balance and counter to the abuse of power at the hands of those who wield considerable influence on the network.

You know, the decline of Steemit genuinely broke my heart, At one point, I recognised Steemit as the most amazing thing potentially for those wanting to profit from their own self-development. I watched as it became so much more difficult for one to do that, and then as it became impossible too. I hadn't realised it, but hive still has so much potential, and it has a community of people who seem still to give a fuck in a world where given none is becoming fashionable. I think there is still a chance here to create something that can change the world and can provide opportunity to those who may not be able to find any elsewhere. I think it is just up to us, and to you, to have the courage to dream big enough, and to not be led astray by the forces that have co-opted the world and are trying to drag us in the opposite direction.

One final idea, which if you cannot implement into Hive specifically because of current wealth distribution being a problem, could perhaps simply be a great idea for a brand new token, and if someone steals this idea and goes and launches a new coin that becomes worth a ridiculous amount, feel free to send me some. But yeah, what if, one could take out interest free loans, by locking up some of their tokens?

For example, you are permitted to mint to 50% of however many coins you lock up. So I lock up 100,000 coins, I can then mint 50,000 new coins and go and sell them and spend the money elsewhere, do whatever. And the loan is interest free, whenever that 50,000 coins is returned and burned, you gain access to the locked up coins again.

Would this not put upward pressure on the market? Crypto investors would like the idea of locking up, and keeping some funds invested in a promising coin, and getting an interest free amount equal to half that to go sell and invest in other promising coins. So there would be a ton of people buying these coins, and also a ton selling, but the amount getting sold by people will typically be half of what they just bought, so the market would see an upward trend, no? If a loan isn't paid back within 14 years or however many years decided, the locked up coins would be released, 50% being burned to pay back the loan and reduce coin count, and the other 50 divided up between long term holders of the coin, with those having held in their wallets the longest receiving the lion's share to encourage holding for extended periods of time.

I do not know if this betrays any laws, I doubt it. Probably betrays some statutes, but they are only implemented by consent and if we create a new nation around this idea, somehow, no legal entity no matter how powerful it believes itself to be could wield influence over the platform or currency.

I don't know if any of what I just said was valuable or if it was all nonsense but if you read it all, I thank you anyway.