Should we refund the proposal fee if the proposal passes or doesn't receive barely any votes?

[TheDashGuy]

That way there is more of an incentive to actually participate and learn the ropes of submitting a good proposal without having to lose hard earned dash over and over in the process?

This would also work great if say an abstain option was added in the future...

I brought it up in Slack a couple days ago and a few people seemed to see some merits in having such a feature, so I was curious what others think that aren't in Slack....


@TroyDASH @Solarminer @oaxaca @fernando @kot @tungfa @AndyDark @eduffield @yidakee @camosoul @everyone else....?


/discuss

edit: and just to be clear, if your proposal gets downvoted to hell, no refund for you...

 

[Solarminer]

I just thought of this today. It seems that a lot of proposals get resubmitted with lower amounts to meet the budget at the end of the month. I would suggest we allow any project owner to modify a currently submitted proposal to reduce the timeframe and/or reduce the amount without having to resubmit a proposal.

How about them apples?

 

[yidakee]

The 5 Dash cost is an anti-spam feature. The only reason it exists is to make the budget proposer evaluate the proposal's merit a little before submitting.

.

 

[TroyDASH]

The 5 Dash cost is an anti-spam feature. The only reason it exists is to make the budget proposer evaluate the proposal's merit a little before submitting.

.

It does have the slightly undesirable effect though of using up more of the total budget allocation for the month if people are baking it into the cake, so to speak.

Should fees be refunded, for example, if a proposal gets more yes votes than no votes, but didn't pass due to other more popular proposals using up the whole budget? Or is it sufficient for the criteria for the passage of the proposal to be the same as the criteria that the owner gets their money back?

 

[TheDashGuy]

The 5 Dash cost is an anti-spam feature. The only reason it exists is to make the budget proposer evaluate the proposal's merit a little before submitting.

.

Noone said we should drop the fee, just find a way around the whole throwing away 5 dash for innocent mistakes as opposed to spam or whatever.

Seems like this setup could be a little smarter with just a small tweak..

 

[yidakee]

It does have the slightly undesirable effect though of using up more of the total budget allocation for the month if people are baking it into the cake, so to speak.

I don't see the undesirable effect and not all proposals are funded. And the total amount of proposal fees is but a fraction of the total budget.

Should fees be refunded, for example, if a proposal gets more yes votes than no votes, but didn't pass due to other more popular proposals using up the whole budget? Or is it sufficient for the criteria for the passage of the proposal to be the same as the criteria that the owner gets their money back?

I would think that will null the anti-spam feature. Or reduce the anti-spam by 75+% loosely. Only 10% of votes are needed to pass, so if we substantially increase the number of proposal, we substantially decrease the voting participation by saturation of MN ops. Say we get 100 proposals, many will have 1-0 votes, and fee's sent back? Dunno...

 

[yidakee]

Noone said we should drop the fee, just find a way around the whole throwing away 5 dash for innocent mistakes as opposed to spam or whatever.

Seems like this setup could be a little smarter with just a small tweak..

Send a pull request

.

 

[kot]

Good question @TheDashGuy . I have to admin that I do not have a clear answer to this question.
The most logical option for me would be something like "Yes, if the vote does receive more than "X" votes."
It would prevent from spam and ensure that proposals with some level of attention would have fee reimbursed.
Nevertheless it is not perfect neither because a proposal like: "I would like to build a pony from pink wood" could have reached the vote threshold because of e.g. 1000 "No" votes and very good proposal (well described, with reasonable business case etc) but not interesting to many people (at that particular moment in time) could get minimal number of votes. Therefore with the option I have proposed, there should be also an agreement of masternode owners that they do not vote on fake proposals at all (in order to not reach the threshold)

 

[TroyDASH]

Good question @TheDashGuy . I have to admin that I do not have a clear answer to this question.
The most logical option for me would be something like "Yes, if the vote does receive more than "X" votes."
It would prevent from spam and ensure that proposals with some level of attention would have fee reimbursed.
Nevertheless it is not perfect neither because a proposal like: "I would like to build a pony from pink wood" could have reached the vote threshold because of e.g. 1000 "No" votes and very good proposal (well described, with reasonable business case etc) but not interesting to many people (at that particular moment in time) could get minimal number of votes. Therefore with the option I have proposed, there should be also an agreement of masternode owners that they do not vote on fake proposals at all (in order to not reach the threshold)

Could be combination - require more yes votes than no votes, and also a minimum number of votes. That way only projects that were well received but not necessarily funded, would be eligible.

I don't see this as a significant issue right now but it's something to consider as a tweak

 

[TheDashGuy]

Could be combination - require more yes votes than no votes, and also a minimum number of votes. That way only projects that were well received but not necessarily funded, would be eligible.

I don't see this as a significant issue right now but it's something to consider as a tweak

Thats what im getting at mostly.... but I'm by no means suggesting this is a MUST have right now, but imagine when this whole concept starts growing so quickly and this becomes more of an issue than it currently is, we might as well plan for the future, no?
5 dash is quite a hefty chunk of change these days honestly...

and aren't we creating more than just a budgeting system, aren't we/ haven't we created sort of a budgetary & communication tool combo with the nodes? Why should people be "punished" for just refocusing their efforts after the nodes have given their opinion?

 

[TheDashGuy]

Send a pull request

.

Get back to me when you stop trying to be funny.

Not everyone is a programmer >.>

 

[fernando]

I'd say only if it passes. Most people are increasing the amount in 5 dash just to cover for this, so it is happening anyway. If we open it more we are weakening the anti spam protection. There is a post somewhere in this forum by @UdjinM6 in which he explains quite well how the voting system can be used to collapse the network. In fact, even now the syncing of other data takes quite a while.

 

[UdjinM6]

I just thought of this today. It seems that a lot of proposals get resubmitted with lower amounts to meet the budget at the end of the month. I would suggest we allow any project owner to modify a currently submitted proposal to reduce the timeframe and/or reduce the amount without having to resubmit a proposal.

How about them apples?

I don't think it's a good idea. The fee tx has hash of all valuable parameters exactly to ensure that nothing important can be changed after MNs are able to vote (and that is right from the moment they see a proposal). It's literally written in stone (blockchain). Otherwise imo there is no reason for MNs to trust the system if the one who submitted a proposal would be able to change it at any time.

Regarding the fee refund, I don't see an issue with 5 DASH being included in every proposal amount - it's not a rocket science, it's a simple math. If the one who is going to submit a proposal isn't capable of calculating the result of the simple equation "proposal <amount> = <proposal cost> + <submission fee>" then maybe he is not ready to submit anything yet.

As for the "fee takes a piece of the monthly budget", say we have 10 new proposals every month. That will require 50 DASH of the total budget of 7450 DASH (currently) to be spent as a fee i.e. it's 0.67%... I see no issue with fee being 0.67% at all.

So, it's completely fine as it is, burn it.

 

[yidakee]

Get back to me when you stop trying to be funny.

Not everyone is a programmer >.>

I wasn't trying to be funny. But in your own words "...with just a small tweak" - Exactly because you're not a programmer, a "simple" idea in your head must be a "simple" feature to implement, when in reality quite often it's exactly the opposite. That's why I was cheeky, and in between the lines said "well, if it's that simple, code it, or ask someone to code it for you, should be very easy to do as it is just a simple tweak" - When in reality that solution would probably require a total rewrite of the code.

I wasn't trying to pull your strings. This was the first iteration of DGbB. Soon the second. If you join testnet, like many of us did for the original DGbB, playing around with tDash, you'll be able to see first hands the effects of having absolutely no real life cost to submit proposals and propose to your heart's content. And the mission is always to try to break stuff. It wasn't mayhem because testnet by nature is a small controlled environment with small participating numbers, but in any case an excellent playground.

From what we've seen so far by Masternode voting participation, I don't think lowering the entry point from proposals can be a good thing. It could further the fragmentation and quality of proposals. The idea is interesting for sure, if we had much more real life capital to play with. I dream of a time where anyone anywhere can grab small, medium or large gigs from the network and be self-employed and free from regular societal work labour structure, but the system has to seriously mature until such is viable

.