Pre-Proposal: DASH Proposal fee lowered to 1.0 DASH
- Thread starter Technologov
- Start date
No.
Anybody considering this a good idea: you're backing a proposal to force core to do a hard fork.
The resulting flood of bs proposals will do damage.
f*ck the concern troll's.
Anybody considering this a good idea: you're backing a proposal to force core to do a hard fork.
The resulting flood of bs proposals will do damage.
f*ck the concern troll's.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/reduction-of-proposal-fee-to-0-1-dash-proposal.14131/#post-120984
"Rollback plan" - vote again to change to smth else.
Dev resources - not much: changing one single constant, executing major upgrade (preferably, I still think it's too dangerous to change it between budget cycles with no protobump).
Regarding the proposal - I guess 1 DASH fee would work too, at least we can give it a try. However, as I mentioned in that post, I would be more interested in self-adjusting fee but that's a whole new topic (and yet another proposal
) I guess.
I guess 10 DASH for this one is because he wants to cover expenses for this and previous proposal ("lower to 0.1")
Don't base your decision based on number of Dash... This is his 2nd proposal regarding this, so he'll just be breaking even if it passes. Kind of ironic this is costing him $750+ just to adjust the proposal costs... ridiculously high in my mind. Will only cost you about $75 to reverse this if it turns out to be a problem!
I have already lost 10 DASH ($750), just so that newcomers and less wealthy than I, won't need to put up big money to submit a new proposal. That 10 DASH will let me to break even, and recoup my losses, but I gain zero money here. This is a governance proposal, not a budget proposal.
----
Self adjusting fee may be even better, but it takes some brain to figure it out.
My general idea :
The ideal amount of proposals is something that Masternode operators can read and vote on. If we will have too many proposals with under 10% vote (under 400 Masternodes vote), it means that the fee is too cheap, needs to be slightly increased. On the other hand, If we have too much budget, unallocated and waiting, like now, it means that our proposal fee is too expensive. Clearly 5 DASH is way too expensive.
We need to have several competing proposals for every DASH coin we have available in the budget.
----
Self adjusting fee may be even better, but it takes some brain to figure it out.
My general idea :
The ideal amount of proposals is something that Masternode operators can read and vote on. If we will have too many proposals with under 10% vote (under 400 Masternodes vote), it means that the fee is too cheap, needs to be slightly increased. On the other hand, If we have too much budget, unallocated and waiting, like now, it means that our proposal fee is too expensive. Clearly 5 DASH is way too expensive.
We need to have several competing proposals for every DASH coin we have available in the budget.
Last edited:
Perhaps, for example, the base level could be 1 dash but increases by 1 dash for every 100 proposals submitted.Regarding the proposal - I guess 1 DASH fee would work too, at least we can give it a try. However, as I mentioned in that post, I would be more interested in self-adjusting fee but that's a whole new topic (and yet another proposal
I'm not in favor of this. It seems like a very arbitrary network change that only sets up the need for more arbitrary network changes later as Dash price adjusts.
I've still not heard an answer to the very valid point that we already have a variety of TOTALLY FREE channels for people to float their ideas around the community. Why is it necessary to start 'moving the dials' all around and hope it all goes well? Near as I can tell, this is not founded on any real data that suggests we have any problem or that we're missing anything not currently available through existing means.
I've still not heard an answer to the very valid point that we already have a variety of TOTALLY FREE channels for people to float their ideas around the community. Why is it necessary to start 'moving the dials' all around and hope it all goes well? Near as I can tell, this is not founded on any real data that suggests we have any problem or that we're missing anything not currently available through existing means.
Last edited:
>this is not founded on any real data that suggests wehave any problem
LOL? Of course we have a huge problem. We have tons of unallocated budget and zero proposals. We need to have lots of proposals for every DASH coin we have.
LOL? Of course we have a huge problem. We have tons of unallocated budget and zero proposals. We need to have lots of proposals for every DASH coin we have.
The free channel doesn't change the fact that you may lose when submitting to dashcentral. Depending on your wealth, 750 dollars is way to much for many people.
Now, aside from a self adjusting fee that I agree with, would it be possible (long term solution I guess) to set up a kind of crowdfunding tool to fund proposal cost ?
Coz the problem even if you have a the best idea in the world, you might not be able to risk loosing 100 dollars on a proposal (because those 100 dollars might represent a thenth of your wealth). However, if it's truely a good idea, other wealthy people might want risk it for you (above all if we are talking about structural or governance proposal that don't bring the proposer any money).
If my idea is good, I should be able to promote it around the free channel and get donation from people to submit proposal. If the amount is not reached, everybody is funded back. If it does reach 1 dash, proposal is submitted. If it passes, everybody is funded back. If not everybody share the loss.
This highlights our difference: I don't see unallocated budget as huge problem, and the zero proposals (not exactly accurate) is not because lots of great ideas from the forums and slacks can't seem to afford the fee. If we act like we want ideas bad enough, we'll get bad ideas. In the mean time, keep the existing Dash dear by not racing to allocate budget, like over-bloated governments do.
Initially I voted No - worried about a flood of proposals causing MNO burnout.
At the same time I agree that 5 Dash is too much.
I would have prefered a gradual decrease to 3 Dash - collect data and evaluate and then go down further, but - this will be a pain in the a***
At the moment Dash is quite low and Evo is still on the horizon, so this might be a good time to take the plunge. I vote yes.
At the same time I agree that 5 Dash is too much.
I would have prefered a gradual decrease to 3 Dash - collect data and evaluate and then go down further, but - this will be a pain in the a***
At the moment Dash is quite low and Evo is still on the horizon, so this might be a good time to take the plunge. I vote yes.
I like your idea of possibly allowing sponsorship of the fee to help someone where the existing fee is truly the limiting factor and they are reasonably not able to afford it. I would personally pay for a fee in such a case, AFTER it's been vetted successfully in the free areas.
Another possibility could be to add in a criteria-based fee refund based on the metrics achieved by the proposal, say more Yes than No votes, which indicates the MN's collectively found value in the idea.
There are surely ways to improve over the existing system, but there are also ways to harm it too such as just opening the spigot would do, IMO.
Last edited:
Aren't proposals supposed to *accomplish* something, not just act like fee-based opinion polls? Why propose to keep something that is currently in place? Should we also then propose to keep InstantSend? I'm missing your point, perhaps, but I do note that this risk of becoming just a fee-based opinion poll system (vs. accomplishing something for the network) grows as the fee gets lowered.
Proposals are of 2 types: "budget proposals", where we fund Charlie Shrem, Amanda, or Dash Core developers salaries.
And "Governance proposals", where we don't fund anyone, but decide very important matters for the Dash project going forward. Political decisions, like in congress. My proposals are of this type.
And "Governance proposals", where we don't fund anyone, but decide very important matters for the Dash project going forward. Political decisions, like in congress. My proposals are of this type.
How do you know that there even were any proposals that there was a creator who was not able to submit because of the high fee? If there were any, they should have posted a thread with their idea and attempted to raise the funds. If we started to see a bunch of actual examples of people who are unable to fund the fee then that would be the evidence I'm looking for. The pizza proposal got crowdfunded in about 5 minutes on Slack. Other smaller initiatives have been picked up by the dashforce. I'm pretty sure anything with a chance of earning 10% of masternode votes would have a good shot at getting funded somehow, so I guess I would be looking for any counterexamples.
The reason the budget isn't full is that the budget size grew to nearly 10x its size in a short period. It takes some time for the market to react and form new opportunities to take advantage
Last edited:
>How do you know that there even were any proposals that there was a creator who was not able to submit
I don't know, but I believe in Free Markets, reducing barriers and reducing regulation to near-zero levels. A law of capitalism. This is what allows to create true wealth. And a high, 5 DASH fee is such a barrier.
I don't know, but I believe in Free Markets, reducing barriers and reducing regulation to near-zero levels. A law of capitalism. This is what allows to create true wealth. And a high, 5 DASH fee is such a barrier.
Last edited:
Yes that was I meant.
Step one : go to preproposal and make a new thread. In this thread there will be a link to participate in the crowdfunding
Step two : discuss and answer people's question
Step three : I guess the amount will be reach only if enough people are convinced by the preproposal and the answers given by the proposer
Step four : Once the amount reach, take it to dashcentral (that should be a smartcontract in order to prevent the proposer to get awaay with the 5 dash)
Great idea !
Absolutely, that's why those talks are so important (and great !)
By this argument, we shouldn't have any fee at all, and therefore MN time and effort (and Dash scarcity) has zero value. Of course, there are other laws of Free Markets that should be considered like effective resource allocation. Too narrow a statement, IMO.
>By this argument, we shouldn't have any fee at all
This is why my first proposal was to reduce it to 0.1 DASH. All I wanted is to eliminate robots from spamming 10,000 spam-proposals, but let any proposals, however small to be listed. Dash scarcity has value, just like any money should be scarce, in order to have value.
But transaction costs and block space and proposals fees need to be close-to-zero. Very cheap.
This is why my first proposal was to reduce it to 0.1 DASH. All I wanted is to eliminate robots from spamming 10,000 spam-proposals, but let any proposals, however small to be listed. Dash scarcity has value, just like any money should be scarce, in order to have value.
But transaction costs and block space and proposals fees need to be close-to-zero. Very cheap.
Yes, and this is one if those FREE channels and it has 21 Yes Votes and 10 No Votes... Yet here we are, with this proposal hanging in the balance. It may still not pass. I personally will not be submitting any kind of proposal through our system until the fees are lowered because I can't trust the community's decision based on these FREE channels. Governance is a little bit broken right now, and the price needs to be lowered. Dash is a crypto that is supported around the world, and people from around the world need to be able to afford to submit a proposal, not just us elite!
Anybody can submit a proposal. If it is a good idea then it *will* get funded. Show me one person who had a solid project idea who was not able to raise funds for the proposal fee or not able to get funded from dashforce or somebody else.
I don't think there is any evidence that the proposal fee has stopped anyone from doing a project who otherwise would have been approved by the Masternodes if only they were able to scrounge the 5 dash. If there are people out there like that, then come forward! We will fund you lol
Actually it would be fairly simple to make such a site and get it running, and this would be a solution that can scale, no mater the Dash-to-fiat ratio. It also can be done quicker than implementing a 1 Dash proposal fee which would probably require a major update.
And so, while I initially supported lowering the fee to 1 Dash in the other thread, I think this would make more sense. And also because proposal evaluation by MNs costs money, as shown here.
Changing my vote in this poll from abstain to no.
EDIT: The forum embeded the video automatically instead of just linking to it like I wanted. Corrected.
I'd love to see this solution developed. It is much more of a 'Free Market' solution than just lowering the fee since it allows any idea to get supported based upon its merit, even to the point of crowd-sponsoring the fee (if people are indeed interested)!
Couldn't this be implemented via a fork of a tipbot? Say, collect tips for a proposal submission via forum/slack/reddit/whatever and submit proposal as soon as 5 DASH are raised. If the fund is not raised or the author changes the idea, fund is returned to the participants.
Since tipbot is off-chain now, it would be a centralized but cheap solultion.
Feedback?
Since tipbot is off-chain now, it would be a centralized but cheap solultion.
Feedback?
Ok, so where do we go from there ? Who has the skill to design a project so we can submit a preproposal ?
Just to point out that we should not forget that the money it costs the network is inherent to decentralization.
As we say in French, we cannot have the butter and the money from the butter. Meaning we cannot have it both ways, can't have the cost and time efficiency of centralization and be decentralized.
Decentralization comes at a cost. This forum is also a proof : how many discussions, how many people spending time on it ? How many topic discussed twice or thrice ? I'm a translator and I can tell you that sometimes happened that thing got translated twice. It doesn't mean it's ok, it just means that's a side effect of decentralization that we can control up to a certain point.
As I told you, I don't have the tecnical skills to understand one or other solution. What would be the limits of each solution ? As far as I'm concerned, I believe that the crowdfunding tool should (1) not allow the proposer to disappear with the 5 dashs of the proposal cost once he manages to gather it and (2) that those 5 dashs should be sent back to their multiple owners if the proposal is passed.
If your what you propose meets those condition, I'm all up for it. If not, please, tell me what are the limits and so on.