Pre-Proposal: Alternative Budget System. How much do you pay for someone to do a job?

[Monachilada]

I wouldn't want to prohibit the MNOs from seeking a better price, but again I see that as an aspect and benefit of a theoretical seperate tender process. As far as proposals go, The MNOs can already decide if a proposal budget is justified and vote it down if they don't think it's worth it. If it doesn't fit into the category of being uniquely achievable by the proposal owner, they and/or someone else could resubmit with a lower budget. Also, a well functioning pre-proposal phase can and should act as a form of negotiation for a better price, no?

What I would grant in that situation is that is currently disincentivized due to the relatively high cost of submission currently, but I think that's an issue that should be solved anyway, for more reasons other than the scenario I'm describing above.

 

[demo]

I wouldn't want to prohibit the MNOs from seeking a better price, but again I see that as an aspect and benefit of a theoretical seperate tender process. As far as proposals go, The MNOs can already decide if a proposal budget is justified and vote it down if they don't think it's worth it. If it doesn't fit into the category of being uniquely achievable by the proposal owner, they and/or someone else could resubmit with a lower budget. Also, a well functioning pre-proposal phase can and should act as a form of negotiation for a better price, no?

No, because the masternodes do not participate in the pre-proposal phase.
The pre-proposal is forum related.

What I would grant in that situation is that is currently disincentivized due to the relatively high cost of submission currently, but I think that's an issue that should be solved anyway, for more reasons other than the scenario I'm describing above.

Yes, if the proposal fee were cheap, then the proposal owner could resubmit it. But it isnt, because the masternodes cannot handle too many questions. This is their reason (wrong reason, but this is another discussion) and taking into account their reason, the price should be negotiatable, this is a better solution than resubmiting the whole proposal again and re-paying the proposal fee in order to offer a better price.

 

[Monachilada]

True, that does appear to be the case. But is there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

If not, then if the concern you raise was as big for MNOs as it is for you, I would expect more participation in the pre-proposal phase from MNOs. The fact that it isn't doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but also doesn't point to it as being as high on the list of priorities for most others.

 

[demo]

True, that does appear to be the case. But is there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

If not, then if the concern you raise was as big for MNOs as it is for you, I would expect more participation in the pre-proposal phase from MNOs. The fact that it isn't doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but also doesn't point to it as being as high on the list of priorities for most others.

The masternodes do not participate in endless talks in forums. Their time is limited. They just want to vote. Vote a yes or a No, and (why not?) vote a price or a lower price.

I still wonder what is the underlying reason you want to prohibit the masternodes to vote for a price. The current budget system tends to become trust dependant and not job oriented, and this is against nakamoto principles.

I'm in TroyDASH's camp. Not only many but most of the proposals seem to me to be unique to their owners, either in the sense that they are tied to a specific sponsorship of an event or action, or revolve around some form of intellectual property or concept unique to the owner and their personality, for example a youtube channel or creative concept or personal network.

How all the above (that I highlighted) are related to a nakamoto system? Your way of thinking is tottaly opposite to the thinking of nakamoto! What are you doing here? Why you want to poison the community with your corrupted way of thinking?

Trusted Parties Are Security Holes

We are trying to built a trust-less system here. We dont like sponsorship, we don't like intellectual property, and we do not care about the personality of the proposal owner as long as he is capable to deliver the job. This is what the anonymous satoshi teached us, and regarding these issues we should follow his road , rather than your road, which is the common corrupted road that every crypto illiterate follows.

 

[arjunyg]

I appreciate the decentralized sentiment, but I think demo's implementation strays from viability. Perhaps a system where escrow DAOs are built in would serve the same purpose. Smart contracts (Ethereum-style) would immediately allow this.

Example sketch:
A fiat valuation escrow contract takes a data feed from a number of MNOs on the current Dash price. Any MNO is free to contribute data to the escrow contract on the blockchain by reporting the Dash price once per day or so. An average of the reported prices over a two week period is used to pay proposal owners according to an individual contract approved by the MNOs a proposal time. The escrow contract would charge a small fee to insure itself against price downswings, and perhaps to pay a developer group.
One of these contracts could be established for each fiat market, to provide all proposal owners convenient local fiat insurance.

That's super vague, but hopefully it gets the idea across. I feel like I had some more details, but I forgot them, so someone else can do the thinking now