HedgedAndLevered
Member
Problem:
It seems to be the community's unspoken consensus that proposals should generally be paying for future work up-front 100%, even for those proposals that do not require an initial investment (I'm not talking about proposals that require the proposal owner to purchase property or services).
For example, this proposal involves a payment of 4 dash for future content.
Why is this the norm to pay all 4 dash up front?
In general, the price fluctuations can really make a difference here. If the price were to decline before the task was complete, the proposal owner has lowered incentive to complete the task. If the price increases, then the DAO has overpaid for future services.
"Well, its so small what does it matter if we have some waste" not a legitimate answer. There need to be standards for proposals. I'm aware that we have hundreds of thousands $ more than we can work with. If that becomes an excuse to waste, it will hurt Dash.
Amounts even as large as 100 dash will barely matter as far as their effect on the price, and we'd probably be better off *in the short term* wasting an extra 10-20 dash if it meant passing this particular proposal (I actually like the overall goal) but that's not the point.
The Dash DAO is in its infancy right now, and the standards we require with each proposal will affect the quality of future proposals we get.
Admittedly, voting "no" on this because of a 1-2 dash mistake would be a bit extreme, especially since this guy wouldn't have any reason to even put a 25/75 split for future work in his proposal, because that hasn't been the way the DAO has operated thus far and would seem strange.
Just feels like some discussion on this issue is warranted.
Potential solution:
I propose that we create a constitution for proposals, where the violation of any of them should be an automatic "no" regardless of other merits.
Re-proposals with the fixes could include an additional 5 dash to cover the costs of the first "no". Just a thought.
For example, one of the standards could be "you must not include incentives that only extend to masternode owners". As I've posted before, such a clause sets a dangerous precedent.
Another example: for any services or equipment the proposal owner needs to purchase, a dollar breakdown is required. In the proposal linked above, the owner asks for 1 dash to purchase some equipment. He should be required to research the equipment he'd like to purchase and provide links on amazon or newegg to those items.
If you guys like the thought of a constitution/list of standards, perhaps we could make that another thread to start it.
It seems to be the community's unspoken consensus that proposals should generally be paying for future work up-front 100%, even for those proposals that do not require an initial investment (I'm not talking about proposals that require the proposal owner to purchase property or services).
For example, this proposal involves a payment of 4 dash for future content.
Why is this the norm to pay all 4 dash up front?
In general, the price fluctuations can really make a difference here. If the price were to decline before the task was complete, the proposal owner has lowered incentive to complete the task. If the price increases, then the DAO has overpaid for future services.
"Well, its so small what does it matter if we have some waste" not a legitimate answer. There need to be standards for proposals. I'm aware that we have hundreds of thousands $ more than we can work with. If that becomes an excuse to waste, it will hurt Dash.
Amounts even as large as 100 dash will barely matter as far as their effect on the price, and we'd probably be better off *in the short term* wasting an extra 10-20 dash if it meant passing this particular proposal (I actually like the overall goal) but that's not the point.
The Dash DAO is in its infancy right now, and the standards we require with each proposal will affect the quality of future proposals we get.
Admittedly, voting "no" on this because of a 1-2 dash mistake would be a bit extreme, especially since this guy wouldn't have any reason to even put a 25/75 split for future work in his proposal, because that hasn't been the way the DAO has operated thus far and would seem strange.
Just feels like some discussion on this issue is warranted.
Potential solution:
I propose that we create a constitution for proposals, where the violation of any of them should be an automatic "no" regardless of other merits.
Re-proposals with the fixes could include an additional 5 dash to cover the costs of the first "no". Just a thought.
For example, one of the standards could be "you must not include incentives that only extend to masternode owners". As I've posted before, such a clause sets a dangerous precedent.
Another example: for any services or equipment the proposal owner needs to purchase, a dollar breakdown is required. In the proposal linked above, the owner asks for 1 dash to purchase some equipment. He should be required to research the equipment he'd like to purchase and provide links on amazon or newegg to those items.
If you guys like the thought of a constitution/list of standards, perhaps we could make that another thread to start it.
Last edited:
