• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Pre-proposal reduce the proposal fee to 1 dash

Thanks interesting. I did notice the sudden jump and was wondering what happened. Maybe it's Binance? Someone else? Anyway, unfortunately, it's nowhere near enough to pass.


According the research of @xkcd, here you are the Binance nodes.

This fleet of 270 masternodes has no voting history, thus they cannot be seen in the voters report of mnowatch.
If you put "Binance" in the Types Filter, the result is zero masternodes.

The Binance masternodes that have be spotted, can be discovered in the firstResults/all_masternodes report of mnowatch, if you put "Binance" in the IP filter.
 
Last edited:
Some new analysis on the proposal suggests a fair fee of 2.5 DASH is warranted.

But MNOs have already stated their position; their belief that a lower fee will produce lower quality proposals.

I've been saying for years that the proposal fee should reduce inline with coin emission. I don't think anyone is interested unless it comes from the church of DCG.
 
But MNOs have already stated their position; their belief that a lower fee will produce lower quality proposals.
Yes, but I am trying to educate the MNOs that spam != low quality proposals. They are two different things. The reason we have a proposal fee at all is because otherwise it would cost nothing to raise a proposal and it takes almost no work to do it, so someone could write a bot to simply submit proposals all day taking down the MN network which stores the proposals in RAM and never on the blockchain. This would essentially be a denial of service (DOS) attack.

IMO the fee was never meant as a grand filter for removing frivolous/low value proposals. It was there purely to protect the network from attack.

Further, IMO the high proposal fee is now liked by the status quo because it suits them to block out newcomers and competition since they are already well-known and get funding, just look at today's https://mnowatch.org/leaderboard/ line up, all the usual suspects get their DASH, all in the gravy zone and only 13 DASH leftover, Oh my! How perfectly it all fits and the in-the-know crew get all the funding. IMO this is way too orderly and shows the DAO is very pedestrian, very safe at the moment and I would like to see it shaken up with some ideas and new people coming through.

Ultimately my fear is that DASH is already a dead coin and uninteresting to outsiders, we are unable to attract significant new investment and continue our slide down CMC into obscurity. I pray one day the MNOs wake up and MDGA !
 
Some new analysis on the proposal suggests a fair fee of 2.5 DASH is warranted.

It's not simply a question of math. The project is different now. It has more structure. And we have the DIF, so direct proposal funding is not the only option and in many cases IT IS NOT THE PREFERRED OPTION. Most of the people who are attracted to the proposal system are either amateurs or sociopaths. We need to keep the fee high so that they feel the appropriate amount of pain when they create a proposal.

@xkcd, how come you don't comment on DashCentral?
 
Last edited:
@xkcd, how come you don't comment on DashCentral?
I am on DC, but for legacy reasons when I signed up, I joined under a different username, so it is not immediately obvious exactly who I am there.
 
It's not simply a question of math. The project is different now. It has more structure. And we have the DIF, so direct proposal funding is not the only option and in many cases IT IS NOT THE PREFERRED OPTION. Most of the people who are attracted to the proposal system are either amateurs or sociopaths. We need to keep the fee high so that they feel the appropriate amount of pain when they create a proposal.

@xkcd, how come you don't comment on DashCentral?

First year economic study says the concept of supply and demand is math. The current system has an unknown demand side because you choose to have the entry fee fixed at an arbitrary number. The equilibrium can not be discovered in the current system.

Let's just say, for arguments sake, that your assertions are at least partially correct. Perhaps then the optimum fee is higher than 5 dash? How are we going to discover that price? - by randomly choosing a higher number?

You may assert that the current system clearly works. After all, the budget this month was almost full, leaving only 13 dash on the table. This also means that coin inflation will also be maxed out; the coins requested will be created and distributed from the superblock. Conversely, if a lower fee leads to more demand that the system allows, those proposal fees will be burned, leading to increased coin scarcity. I mean, even if MNOs vote entirely for scams, the inflation can not go beyond what is already maxed out, it's just not possible.

More so, let's just say the proposal fee is 10 dash and the treasury still maxes out, that too creates more coin scarcity. In your assessment, it would also increase the quality of proposals. So while you're busy looking at the potential downsides, you're completely ignoring the potential upsides.

Assuming demand is there, increased coin scarcity pushes the price up, which means all stakeholders gets more bang for their buck.
 
The DIF complicates any analysis of supply and demand with regard to the treasury. This month the DIF created a supplementary proposal to basically throw the rest of the budget into the DIF's coffers and the DAO has obliged. I like this arrangement, because I view the DIF as the DAO's savings account. Any money sent to the DIF is recaptured by the DAO.
 
A voice from the past, that It is still valid nowdays.

If you refuse to diminish the proposal fee you will never become big, because this bad decision reveals your real character. You are fat rich lazy guys and you are afraid of the work that is required in order to evaluate proposals. You are stupid guys and you are afraid of taking governance decisions thats why you set the question price so high. You are suspicious guys, you suspect that people will spam you, but spam has not occured yet. Who wants to join a community that is lead by lazy, suspicious and stupid guys that delegate their leading role to others or to employees-slaves? If you refuse to diminish the proposal fee you will bleed. You will lose both people (especially the new generations) and faith.

Dash's rank is now 53!!! And keep falling!

People against an adaptive proposal fee are bad actors, pure and simple.

Lets put a decision proposal asking to keep the Proposal Fee stable to 5 Dash forever!!!!

The 5 dash proposal fee was never voted by the masternodes. It was just a hardcoded number.
Lets put a proposal asking to keep the Proposal Fee stable to 5 Dash. I bet that the 5 dash proposal fee will not pass.
If the 5 dash proposal fee fails, this will be a proof on how much stupid the masternode community is. If the 5 dash proposal fee passes, and as long as this 5 dash was initialy imposed and not voted, this will prove how much conservative the masternode community is.


I now raise my offer to 12%


Siria,_sculture_del_mitreo_di_sidon,_389_dc,_krono_mitriaco_con_testa_leonina_e_spire_del_temp...jpg
d1pvlipg1d601.jpg
...or does it?


" Zoroaster has also taught that men should make votive offerings and thank-offerings to Oromazes, and averting and mourning offerings to Areimanius. They pound up in a mortar a certain plant called omomi(?) ( ὄμωμι ) at the same time invoking Hades and Darkness; then they mix it with the blood of a wolf that has been sacrificed, and carry it out and cast it into a place where the sun never shines. fIn fact, they believe that some of the plants belong to the good god and others to the evil daemon;. " ref

"During this process Yaltabaoth and his angels hear the voice of the Monad’s Spirit. While they are terrified by the voice, its echo leaves a trace of an image of the Spirit on the “waters” that form the roof of their realm. Hoping to harness this power for themselves, they attempt to create a copy of this image. The end result of this process is the first human man, Adam. Recognizing an opportunity to retrieve the light imprisoned in the darkness of Yaltabaoth and his world, Sophia and agents of the higher order, referred to variously as the ‘plenoria’ or the ‘Epinoia’, and later as the ‘pleroma’, devise a scheme. They trick Yaltabaoth into blowing his own spiritual essence into Adam. This simultaneously animates Adam and empties Yaltabaoth of the portion of his being derived from Sophia. Seeing the luminosity, intelligence and general superiority of the now animate Adam, Yaltabaoth and the Archons regret their creation and do their best to imprison or dispose of him. Failing to do so, they then attempt to neutralize him by placing him in the Garden of Eden. In this narrative, the Garden of Eden is a false paradise where the fruit of the trees is sin, lust, ignorance, confinement and death. While they give Adam access to the tree of Life, they conceal the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. According to this narrative, the Tree actually represents the penetration of the positive forces of the higher world and the Epinoia into Yaltabaoth’s realm." ref

"This concludes Christ's message. Finally, the savior states that anyone who shares these revelations for personal profit will be cursed. The "Nag Hammadi Codex III" version of the text ends with the prayer, “Jesus Christ, Amen”. " ref
 

Attachments

  • Siria,_sculture_del_mitreo_di_sidon,_389_dc,_krono_mitriaco_con_testa_leonina_e_spire_del_temp...JPG
    Siria,_sculture_del_mitreo_di_sidon,_389_dc,_krono_mitriaco_con_testa_leonina_e_spire_del_temp...JPG
    15.8 KB · Views: 205
Last edited:
7 days to go for the voting deadline, where are the new proposals, all I see is old faces, yet again. Did I miss the pre-proposal discussions that supposedly happen all the time, because you know, 5 dash fees engages MNOs in pre-proposal discussions, right?

Next quarterly call, this subject will be my first question. DCG refuses to acknowledge any problems because they suck up 60%+ of the budget and pretty much always get their way. How could they possibly see any problems.

FIXED PRICING DOESN'T WORK. It distorts free markets. How could it possibly be a perfect 5 dash every single month even when the entire ecosystem is constantly changing around us? The true price is floating, maybe higher, maybe lower.

Perhaps we should implement a fixed transaction fee and reject all transactions not set to that exact amount. And when the fees are too high, we can argue, quite successfully with consistency, that higher transaction fees are a good thing. I mean, so long as someone is paying the high fees, it couldn't possibly be broken, right?

Or maybe we can draw up a pay scale and demand fixed pricing for DAO contractors; all developers get X price and all marketers get Y price? Damn it that's a good idea.
 
Perhaps we should implement a fixed transaction fee and reject all transactions not set to that exact amount. And when the fees are too high, we can argue, quite successfully with consistency, that higher transaction fees are a good thing. I mean, so long as someone is paying the high fees, it couldn't possibly be broken, right?

Or maybe we can draw up a pay scale and demand fixed pricing for DAO contractors; all developers get X price and all marketers get Y price? Damn it that's a good idea.

I propose two proposals that should be casted concurrently.

First proposal
1) If you want the proposal fee to be 5 dash forever vote "YES". (status quo. No changes in the code)
2) If you like adaptive proposal fees vote "NO". (major changes in the code)
3) if you want 1 dash proposal fee vote "ABSTAIN". (simpliest changes in the code)
Second proposal
1) If you want the proposal fee to be a percentage of the requested amount (along with a minimum fee as spam deterrent ) vote "YES". (some changes in the code)
2) If you believe that at no time should the dash proposal fee rise above for ex $100 worth of Dash or below for ex $10, and if it does DCG is instructed to change the proposal fee during its next code push to put the proposal fee bounded somewhere in that range then vote "NO". (some changes in the code)
3) If you want the proposal owner to freely decide the proposal fee, vote "ABSTAIN". (some changes in the code)

For psychological reasons of the YES/NO/ABSTAIN votes (although their original meaning is irrelevant), you could rearrange the options of the 2 proposals-polls as you wish. (For example for the first proposal we could ask a YES for the 1 dash proposal fee, and an ABSTAIN for the statusquo of the 5 dash)

Any other option? What is your last idea? Can you express it as an option? (We will need a third coccurent proposal in that case)
 
Last edited:
I propose two proposals that should be casted concurrently.

First proposal
1) If you want the proposal fee to be 5 dash forever vote "YES". (status quo. No changes in the code)
2) If you like adaptive proposal fees vote "NO". (major changes in the code)
3) if you want 1 dash proposal fee vote "ABSTAIN". (simpliest changes in the code)
Second proposal
1) If you want the proposal fee to be a percentage of the requested amount (along with a minimum fee as spam deterrent ) vote "YES". (some changes in the code)
2) If you believe that at no time should the dash proposal fee rise above for ex $100 worth of Dash or below for ex $10, and if it does DCG is instructed to change the proposal fee during its next code push to put the proposal fee bounded somewhere in that range then vote "NO". (some changes in the code)
3) If you want the proposal owner to freely decide the proposal fee, vote "ABSTAIN". (some changes in the code)

For psychological reasons of the YES/NO/ABSTAIN votes (although their original meaning is irrelevant), you could rearrange the options of the 2 proposals-polls as you wish.

Any other option? What is your last idea? Can you express it as an option? (We will need a third coccurent proposal in that case)

Those against Set Your Price Proposals said the changes were too involved, that Dash Central, Dash Nexus and DMT would all need to be updated. I have some programming skills and I know that was a grossly exaggerated argument. Dash Nexus already has a sort function for proposals so adding an extra field wouldn't be that involved. It was clear to me, the Fixed Price Maximalists will say anything to deny a proposal that didn't come from DCG directly.

I'm certainly not putting forward any more proposals unless the funds are donated. I am, however, considering taking the proposal to PIVX to see what they have to say.
 
Although PIVX is the only place I have proposed something, I decided to leave PIVX community because they deleted their old forum and all talks have been lost. They also deleted the history of proposals, so my failed proposal about adaptive proposals fees cannot be tracked there. I consider such behavior very offensive.

@GrandMasterDash , you have already spend too much money (10 Dash), in order to convice the stupid Dash MNOs to change the proposal fee system.

There is a group in discord that is trying to add a new proposal related to the change of the proposal fee, and they have already 2.5 Dash for the cause. This address https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XcCEHZdhBRVfi4LWM9tbdLZ2nnLo1m944L.htm is collecting the proposal fee for the lower the proposal fee proposal. @xkcd controls the address and asks everyone to send to that address from ONE address, so he can refund the DASH later to sending address.

Hopefully we will have a new proposal.... In case the proposal of @xkcd allows also the 5 dash statusquo to be voted and to be compared to the other alternatives, I will certainly contribute to the proposal fee. Because my strong position on the issue is that the statusquo of the 5 dash proposal fee has never been voted, so our primary goal should be to prove that this statusquo has not the acceptance of the MNOs.

If in a singe proposal, we can prove that the statusquo of 5 dash has not the acceptance of MNOs, and also provide the code required to change the statusquo, this will be the ideal.
As I said before. we have six different options until now, so we may need two concurent proposals (10 Dash) in order to allow all opinions to be heard.
 
Last edited:
Although PIVX is the only place I have proposed something, I decided to leave PIVX community because they deleted their old forum and all talks have been lost.

@GrandMasterDash , you have already spend too much money (10 Dash), in order to convice the stupid MNOs to change the proposal fee system.

There is a group in discord that is trying to add a new proposal fee proposal, and they have already 2.5 Dash for the cause. This address https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XcCEHZdhBRVfi4LWM9tbdLZ2nnLo1m944L.htm is collecting the proposal fee for the lower the proposal fee proposal. @xkcd controls the address and asks everyone to send to that address from ONE address, so he can refund the DASH later to sending address.

Hopefully we will have a new proposal.... In case the proposal allows also the statusquo to be voted and to be compared to the other alternatives, I will certainly contribute to the proposal fee. Because my strong position on the issue is that the statusquo of the proposal fee has never been voted, so our primary goal should be to prove that this statusquo has not the acceptance of the MNOs.

Yeah, except my position against fixed fees is hardened now. 1 dash is a fixed fee, it's still the masternode network dictating a fee without any price discovery.

MNOs must stop looking at pricing in a vacuum, it's not all about dash, there is stiff competition to find and retain talented people. Pointing fingers at the DIF or Dash Incubator doesn't correct the errors of a broken proposal fee.
 
I agree. Fixed proposal fee is pure stupidity. Let the MNOs vote about it and prove how stupid they are.

DIF is very centralized and controled by a small group of people who were elected only by the 5% of the MNOs.

Dash Incubator is also very centralized because @AndyDark holds a veto for everything there. The effort in Dash Incubator is to remove functionalities from the core code and the core Dash protocol, and move them to Dapp (ex. Dash Governance Portal , Dash Straw Poll (d)App ). I strongly disagree with this approach. The voting mechanism should be part of the main protocol (as it is in Tezos), and not an external decentralized application.
 
Last edited:
The DIF was designed to be centralized and controlled by a small group of people. We voted to create the DIF. We voted to fund the DIF. We voted for the DIF supervisors. You are criticizing something you don't understand IMHO.


I understand DIF very well. and I agree with the idea of it. But the implementation of it sucks. And the elected representatives are of very low quality, and very few masternodes support them.

The problem with DIF is that DIF superisors did nothing in the past and keep doing nothing serious now.

DIF should act as a bridge to the real world and to the real economy, its main purpose should be to invest in companies that use only Dash as their currency both for B2B and for B2C. DIF shoud also invest in dash delivery services, so that customers and buisnesses could receive goods directly in their home/offices, and pay directly with dash without exchanging to other currencies. DIF should invest in real economy, provided that this economy uses Dash as the only currency. And do all this in transparency so that MNOs will know both about DIF's investments and how much the investments cost.

Instead of all the above, DIF does almost nothing and its movements are obscure. Their site is not updated since july 2019!!! No recent news there! No report to Dashwatch.org. But the stupid MNOs keep voting and paying them!

DIF's failure is yet another reason for Dash's failure from the 6th cryptocoin to the 50th cryptocoin nowdays, and keep falling.
 
Last edited:
Some valid concerns there RE: DIF and I do share them. That said DIF helped engineer Craypay and is waiting to announce another integration for DASH which should be great, so they are starting to get things done.
 
Back
Top