Reduction in proposal fee to 1 Dash (Pre-Proposal)

[Acedian]

With regard to the current USD price of Dash, I think the proposal fee should be reduced to 1 Dash.

Without this change, I feel that opportunities will be missed. This is because a high proposal cost will discourage submitting of anything but "guaranteed" proposals.

The 5 Dash fee was introduced primarily to prevent spam. This was successful when this fee was only about $15. I see no reason why a fee of about $100 will not successfully discourage spam.

This is still an increase in the proposal fee (in USD), but I deem this to be acceptable and necessary as Dash increases in popularity.

Please indicate if I would have your support.

Thanks for reading and opinions are always welcome.

 

[UdjinM6]

I was thinking about this more recently and it starts to feel like it's our own "block size issue" - some hardcoded number which we (devs) use to guess some limits on how many and how large proposals MNOs are willing to review instead of a) asking them directly b) let market decide if their decision was wise. Having governance mechanism and falling into the same trap as bitcoin would be sad, so +1 for creating (pre-)proposal

 

[Naruto]

Agree with the proposal. But I just want to know is it possible to set The proposal fees to a percentage to the fund that are going to receive? E.g. If a proposal demands for 300 DASH and the fees will be 0.5% I.e. 1.5 DASH?


使用Tapatalk 發送

 

[Jamalulkhair Khairedin]

+1 from me

 

[raze]

I was thinking about this more recently and it starts to feel like it's our own "block size issue" - some hardcoded number which we (devs) use to guess some limits on how many and how large proposals MNOs are willing to review instead of a) asking them directly b) let market decide if their decision was wise. Having governance mechanism and falling into the same trap as bitcoin would be sad, so +1 for creating (pre-)proposal

Would it be possible to implement a dynamic proposal fee that floats on say an average USD valuation pulled from across various exchanges, for example? It seems that just manually changing the proposal fee whenever the price goes up or down doesn't do much to alleviate the situation since it's a slow process and volatility can cause things can change quickly, necessitating yet another change and another proposal.

Then again, maybe there's some technical limitations or weaknesses involved with setting up a dynamic fee structure that I don't know about.

 

[lynx]

We could address this with sporks and MN spork voting.

For example, a mutually exclusive set:

SPORK_21_PROPOSAL_FEE_0_5_DASH": false (253 Y / 410 N / -157 NET)
SPORK_22_PROPOSAL_FEE_1_DASH": true (569 Y / 102 N / 467 NET)
SPORK_23_PROPOSAL_FEE_2_DASH": false (125 Y / 117 N / 8 NET)
SPORK_24_PROPOSAL_FEE_5_DASH": false (59 Y / 397 N / -338 NET)

And if the most voted spork is in the boundary (in this case, either 5 dash or 0,5 Dash) it is a signal for the dev team to create a new fee option.

 

[UdjinM6]

Agree with the proposal. But I just want to know is it possible to set The proposal fees to a percentage to the fund that are going to receive? E.g. If a proposal demands for 300 DASH and the fees will be 0.5% I.e. 1.5 DASH?


使用Tapatalk 發送

I guess it's possible but I would keep some minimal amount otherwise the fee wouldn't make sense - it wouldn't discourage people from spamming with thousands of tiny proposals. 1 DASH seems like a reasonable amount at current prices imo. So maybe "fee as a % but at least 1 DASH" would work but people include fee into proposal usually, so I'm not sure if that would help in any sense.

Would it be possible to implement a dynamic proposal fee that floats on say an average USD valuation pulled from across various exchanges, for example? It seems that just manually changing the proposal fee whenever the price goes up or down doesn't do much to alleviate the situation since it's a slow process and volatility can cause things can change quickly, necessitating yet another change and another proposal.

Then again, maybe there's some technical limitations or weaknesses involved with setting up a dynamic fee structure that I don't know about.

Tying fee to some outside value would require everyone to agree on that value in the first place i.e. you need some trusted party/source. Or an oracle. Which is interesting, since this rises another question - can proposal fee be determined by the masternode network as a vote result? Basically, it's like a spork activated by masternodes. This is not as automated as pulling rate would be (requires MNOs to manually vote) but it's also not that vulnerable. Seems like an interesting idea to think about

We could address this with sporks and MN spork voting.

For example, a mutually exclusive set:

SPORK_21_PROPOSAL_FEE_0_5_DASH": false (253 Y / 410 N / -157 NET)
SPORK_22_PROPOSAL_FEE_1_DASH": true (569 Y / 102 N / 467 NET)
SPORK_23_PROPOSAL_FEE_2_DASH": false (125 Y / 117 N / 8 NET)
SPORK_24_PROPOSAL_FEE_5_DASH": false (59 Y / 397 N / -338 NET)

And if the most voted spork is in the boundary (in this case, either 5 dash or 0,5 Dash) it is a signal for the dev team to create a new fee option.

Haha, I almost clicked "Post Reply" when I saw this new message from you!
Yes, having multi-month proposals like that for signaling could be a workaound while spork voting is not implemented.
This however still requires 1) implementing fee as a regular spork for us being able to change it on the fly 2) implementing some logic for not dropping old legit proposals with lower fee if we decide to rise it one day. This shouldn't be hard to implement though, however it would require another hardfork too, just like if we would remove devs from this decision completely like I suggested above. Anyway, good idea

 

[demo]

I know that my opinion does not count, but I voted yes. And thank you that you still allow my non accountable vote to reside nearby the vote of those who have the power to decide. By the way, I believe that the proposal fee should be less that 1 Dash.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I like the dynamic approach via voting. And I don't mind vote spamming so much if I'm receiving a cut of it (instead of it being burned).

 

[raze]

Tying fee to some outside value would require everyone to agree on that value in the first place i.e. you need some trusted party/source. Or an oracle. Which is interesting, since this rises another question - can proposal fee be determined by the masternode network as a vote result? Basically, it's like a spork activated by masternodes. This is not as automated as pulling rate would be (requires MNOs to manually vote) but it's also not that vulnerable. Seems like an interesting idea to think about

Won't there have to be some trusted source regardless? Consensus of the markets seems like the most decentralized and least prone to abuse since it's automated. As long as the pool of sources is large and diverse enough (maybe along the lines of how CoinMarketCap determines price from a long list of exchanges and trading pairs), and the code used to determine the valuation is open source and publicly audit-able then I don't see the issue.

It seems like having the MN network decide opens up the possibility of conflict of interest if MN operators (large ones in particular) are also proposers; for example, voting for lower fees to get proposals in cheaper and voting for higher fees if they suspect a competing proposal may be coming. Or large holders/proposers might support higher fees in general since they could more easily afford them, thereby reducing competition for funds.

 

[Acedian]

From the people that would like to see a dynamic fee.
Why should someone asking for more funding have to, potentially, pay more to submit their idea?
The fee is just to prevent spam, shouldn't it be fixed at a price that is just high enough to prevent it?

I will criticise my own proposal here:
Reducing it to a fixed 1 Dash isn't a long term solution. It will have to be adjusted again and again.
I just don't know how the fee could be linked to something external to Dash and still get people to agree.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

From the people that would like to see a dynamic fee.
Why should someone asking for more funding have to, potentially, pay more to submit their idea?
The fee is just to prevent spam, shouldn't it be fixed at a price that is just high enough to prevent it?

I will criticise my own proposal here:
Reducing it to a fixed 1 Dash isn't a long term solution. It will have to be adjusted again and again.
I just don't know how the fee could be linked to something external to Dash and still get people to agree.

Personally, I would like to see all proposals translated into at least five major languages as a free inclusive service to submitters. So I think the cost needs to be dynamic, possibly based on word count.

Governance proposals from MNOs would ideally be cheaper, but still there are translation costs.

 

[TroyDASH]

I voted no, but as long as the dev team does not have any major concerns from a network security point of view, I would be okay with a 1 DASH fee. Spam from the "too many proposals to review" perspective doesn't bother me actually -- no matter how many proposals there are I think the best ones are still going to be the ones that get funded. But spam in terms of negative consequences to the network if someone decided to spend $200k to create 2000 proposals, is more of a concern. So as long as the DGBB system is not going to crash even under heavy spam load then I'm okay with it

 

[lynx]

But spam in terms of negative consequences to the network if someone decided to spend $200k to create 2000 proposals

If someone wants to burn US$200k worth of Dash, I'm all for it.

 

[Chadrick]

It would be great if a pre-proposal could have some kind of multi-sig address where backers could pool their money for proposals they like. It would be a kind of pre-proposal, "put your dash where your mouth is" - that doesn't quite roll off the tongue does it... Then if the proposal amount is hit the official proposal could use these funds to post the official one. Would be great if you could pull your own "pledge" if you decided something else was better.

 

[Chadrick]

I voted "yes" because I think $500 (as of current USD prices) is too much for one person. But I also think proposals should be a community thing. If we had a pool like I suggested above then $500 USD would be a good anti-spam price for a community of like minded folks to come up with...

 

[paragon]

Reducing the price of a proposal to 1 Dash is logical at this point especially because the USD equivalent of 5 Dash at the time this policy was instituted was actually significantly less than what the USD equivalent of 1 Dash is now; this is because Dash's price has gone up nearly 9-fold in under 3 months

 

[Naruto]

From the people that would like to see a dynamic fee.
Why should someone asking for more funding have to, potentially, pay more to submit their idea?
The fee is just to prevent spam, shouldn't it be fixed at a price that is just high enough to prevent it?

The reason for me to think about dynamics fee is fixed fees will require people to constantly review is the fees is enough to stop spamming. I didn't think that details about the fairness part.
Even if dynamic fees with upper and lower cap will have the same problem. ... [emoji848] difficult


使用Tapatalk 發送

 

[GrandMasterDash]

No one is tackling the issue of in-depth proposals being translated into multiple languages i.e. extra translation cost. English is not the first language for most people in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

 

[lynx]

No one is tackling the issue of in-depth proposals being translated into multiple languages i.e. extra translation cost. English is not the first language for most people in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

We are hopefully about to lower the proposal cost from ~$500 to ~$100. If you want your proposal translated, hire a translator.