Pre-proposal reduce the proposal fee to 1 dash

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
I have seen this come up in discussion from time to time and I would like to put it to the community for a vote. The decision proposal is to reduce the proposal fee for the DAO from 5 dash to 1 dash.

Pros

  • Make the DAO more accessible to POs to float their ideas without too much risk of financial loss if the idea is rejected.
  • Reduce the amount of DASH that is burned. An 80% reduction in burned DASH can be achieved.
  • The price of DASH has risen so much since the DAO was started, that a 5 DASH spam filter at today's prices is obscene.
  • Since dash.boost is no longer in operation, reducing the fee allows the possibility of funding smaller proposals from the actual DAO.
  • Decision proposals like this would be cheaper and it would make polling the MNO community easier which could help keep DASH aligned with its holders.



Cons

  • An increase in proposals may be considered as additional undesirable workload for MNOs when reviewing proposals
  • Possibility of 'SPAM' proposals.
  • Proposals asking for small amounts of DASH eg 1-5 DASH could be seen as frivolous and not worth consideration.



The topic has been referenced before, for example Kanuuker wrote a piece about how the burned DASH could be reclaimed somehow in https://thedashdao.com/distributing-the-dash-proposal-fees/ if this proposal passes, it would reduce that 'waste'.

Here are some reddit threads that have discussed this idea before, it comes up time and time again.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/kyr9b5 and
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/kzcldt and
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/irujr3 Which included a poll that seemed to support the idea.

1613127318795.png

and again.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/671qsa Which actually went to a decision poll created by a community member.


Votes: 790 Yes / 719 No / 13 Abstain

It failed to get support, but it was close.

Again, here is another reddit about the issue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/7chtrx and
https://old.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/8ibp5a/dash_proposal_fee_maybe_too_high/
and finally..
https://old.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/5ysebk/reducing_proposal_fee/



Why 1 DASH ?

I have chosen 1 DASH because it is a round number, it is 80% cheaper than 5 DASH and IMO DASH will likely trade in a range of $50- $500 for the foreseeable future so a fee of $50-$500 seems like a good compromise with the people that will insist of keeping the proposal fee high. Setting the fee very low, eg 0.1 DASH would magnify the cons and give us less chance of passing this proposal.

I have heard some people ask for a fee tied to the USD, this is impractical for the following reasons.
  1. The DASH network currently has no way (Oracle) of knowing what the current price of DASH is.
  2. The change would become WAY more complex than simply changing one constant in a file.
  3. The devs are not keen on doing extra work, we have to make it as simple as possible for them.
  4. The proposal fee in DASH would always be variable and hard to remember, I like quoting prices in DASH rather than USD.




Implementation/Testing

The relevant change is to reduce this constant to one.

Code:
 static const CAmount GOVERNANCE_PROPOSAL_FEE_TX = (5.0 * COIN);

Then to bump up the protocol versions, this will require a hardfork, the change should be slipped in with the next hardfork of which v0.17 will be one. I would not recommend forking the network just for this one change. We would also have to update and test this site https://proposal.dash.org/ for example where at the very least it has static text specifying the gov fee of 5 DASH. We would also have to rebuild the help pages which also stipulate the 5 DASH proposal fee. https://docs.dash.org/en/stable/governance/understanding.html#contractors-and-proposals

Funding

If you would like to see this decision proposal go ahead, then please consider funding this address XcCEHZdhBRVfi4LWM9tbdLZ2nnLo1m944L I will pay 1 DASH for the fee, that leaves 4 DASH remaining, if you can help, send 1 DASH to that address. To do so follow the steps below.

  1. Create a new address in your wallet.
  2. Send 1.00000192 DASH to that address.
  3. Use coincontrol to select that one input and now send it to XcCEHZdhBRVfi4LWM9tbdLZ2nnLo1m944L
The TX will appear on the blockchain as a 1:1 TX with no change, eg https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XcCEHZdhBRVfi4LWM9tbdLZ2nnLo1m944L.htm

1613130062094.png

This is important, because if I get over funded, I will refunded the unused DASH to the sending addresses pro-rated, so everyone gets some DASH back if we get more than 4 generous donors, so keep sending DASH to that address even if the balance is already 5, I will refund you the unused amount. I will also credit the donors on the proposal if they wish to be associated with it when I lodge it for voting. The proposal will run for one month and ask for 5 DASH back. If we are successfully in passing the proposal, again, the 5 DASH will be distributed back to everyone that chipped in.
 

forro

Member
Apr 13, 2019
94
32
68
The Treasury's 'free-money' problem should be solved before we do something like this.

 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
Bad idea. We're just going to get more low-quality proposals from people who didn't do their research. It's not that hard for a potential PO to take the time to engage the community BEFORE creating a proposal to determine if they are likely to succeed.

You want to create a kind of lottery where, "All you need is a Dash and a dream?"
 
  • Angry
Reactions: xkcd

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,711
824
183
I agree, bad idea. Previous decision proposal clearly showed a lack of censensus on changing the proposal fee from 5 Dash to 1 Dash
(790 yes, 719 no), so why do this all over again ?

The change from $70 (when previous decision proposal was created) and our current Dash price of $164 is not all that different, so why would
masternode operators change their NO vote now and risk introducing a lot more low quality budget proposals and a lot more decision proposals ?

The 5 Dash fee has been in place for 7 years now, in those 7 years i did not see that Dash fee forming a problem, not when Dash was at the very start of
the 2017 bull market and not when Dash was at the very height of the bull market 2017.

No need to fix something that is not broken.
 
Last edited:

Kanuuker

New Member
Mar 30, 2017
29
45
13
47
I have taken my website down for the time being as I don't have time to maintain it. The article that XKCD referenced can be read here.

Regarding lowerering the proposal fee, I am opposed to it. I am of the opinion that we need higher level groups that request funds from the treasury as opposed to a lot of smaller operations. There are too many proposals to review as is, most MNO's aren't professionals and don't know how to properly evaluate a proposal, tribalism is too dominant, and there's simply too much bickering and 'woe is me' attitudes. Also, we're at much greater risk of being scammed with smaller proposals. I want to see high level groups like Dash Development, Dash Marketing, Dash BizDev, etc. Fewer organizations receiving funding will allow for a more structured and coordinated approach between the teams which in turn will increase efficiency and efficacy, continuity of organization, reduce the risk of scams, ease the responsibility of the mno's to monitor the minute details, and will likely create an air of professionalism that is currently missing. As far a small proposals go, Instead going direct to the DAO, I would rather see something similar to Dash Boost be brought back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bft

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
Bad idea. We're just going to get more low-quality proposals from people who didn't do their research. It's not that hard for a potential PO to take the time to engage the community BEFORE creating a proposal to determine if they are likely to succeed.

You want to create a kind of lottery where, "All you need is a Dash and a dream?"
No, the DAO is asking for a fee of $850 currently just to ask it a question, that is anti-competitive and causing us to miss on oppurtunties. It is a filter that is shutting out the world from access to the DAO and further solidfies the olicarchy in DASH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gass

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
The change from $70 (when previous decision proposal was created) and our current Dash price of $164 is not all that different, so why would
masternode operators change their NO vote now and risk introducing a lot more low quality budget proposals and a lot more decision proposals ?
Because , there might be new MNOs in the community this time round? Because existing MNOs might change their minds as they see fewer proposals coming into the DAO?

We are stiffling innovation by blocking out people who can't afford/risk $850 for a roll of the dice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gass

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,994
1,156
1,183
Going from 5 to 1 dash is going to divide opinion too much, I suspect it would fail.

I think you need to set it at 3.9 dash (4 is an unlucky number for many mandarin speakers). A reduction of 1.1 dash is conservative enough to warrant a try.

MNOs don't even pay for proposals these days because 5 dash is basically a whole month's income. If we can't convince MNOs to eat their own dog food, why would a newcomer do it? This is why almost all the proposals are from long established community members.

Imo, the spam argument is overstated. Yes, spam might increase but it may also introduce fresh new faces and one of those could be a gem. So I think, let's make a small adjustment and see what happens.
 

Hilawe

New Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Apr 24, 2017
14
13
3
I think we've discussed this one on one, @xkcd, but I'd prefer a measured response (e.g. reduce to 2.5 Dash) to see what other MNOs think. Personally, I like that if someone is concerned about losing their 5 Dash proposal fee if they don't pass. This way, they're more likely to do deep analysis and write up pre-proposals to make sure it's worthwhile putting up a proposal.

While I love the idea of Twitter training for MNOs, we need an app for crowdsourcing funds for smaller asks like this. I'd rather the treasury focuses on funding devs, Dash tech proposals, incubator, regulatory/compliance legal efforts and lastly private equity investments via DIF.
 

rion

Member
Aug 26, 2016
53
46
58
I support this proposal.

Thanks for putting such a good pre-proposal together @xkcd!

I'm happy to contribute to the proposal fee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bft

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
No, the DAO is asking for a fee of $850 currently just to ask it a question...
The DAO is not a kind of Oracle of Delphi of whom you ask questions via proposal. Some folks here want to micro-manage DCG or the DIF by creating nuisance proposals. We need to keep the Dash fee high to discourage that.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: xkcd

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,994
1,156
1,183
The DAO is not a kind of Oracle of Delphi of whom you ask questions via proposal. Some folks here want to micro-manage DCG or the DIF by creating nuisance proposals. We need to keep the Dash fee high to discourage that.
Perhaps you are not giving enough merit to lost opportunities. A lower fee might lead to more "spam" but the upside potential to find new and fresh talent will be greater. In fact, there is no hard evidence to say what the outcome would be, either way. But what we can say with certainty is that the proposal fee has increasingly become more inaccessible due to coin emission falling every year. This is why the vast majority of proposals these days are from long established faces. Not even node owners put forward proposals, for if they did, they lose an entire month's income.

Unlike a node's collateral, the proposal fee does not perform any technical function on the network. It serves to manage time and effort of both the proposal owner and the node owners. It is assumed - but to an unknown extent - that a lower fee would produce less thought out proposals (less time and effort spent creating them), and conversely more time spent by node operators to asses an increased volume of proposals. I suggest to you that the proposal fee, as managed by the network, is being used to create laziness on the node owners part. In this light, we can say the proposal fee is more akin to a tax. To pay for this tax, our end users must suffer with less innovation and a world view that maybe the dash treasury system is "centralized" - the same old faces.

I suggest we let the proposal owner set the proposal fee, any amount between 1 and 5 dash. When assessing proposals, node owners would sort them by the amount of dash the proposal owner paid. In this way, the spam argument is eliminated because node owners such as yourself would willfully ignore the "cheap" proposals.

Additionally, I suggest that proposals leverage Dash Platform and require a dash username. This would lay the ground for a future proposal owner scoring system e.g. X out of Y proposals were previously funded.
 

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
The DAO is not a kind of Oracle of Delphi of whom you ask questions via proposal. Some folks here want to micro-manage DCG or the DIF by creating nuisance proposals. We need to keep the Dash fee high to discourage that.
It is ludicrous to suggest someone would pay $1,100 to SPAM the DAO, what world do you live in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gass

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
It is ludicrous to suggest someone would pay $1,100 to SPAM the DAO...
You're proving my point. It is unlikely someone (or some group) would pay $1,100 to SPAM the DAO. We want to keep it unlikely by not reducing the Dash fee to create a proposal.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: xkcd

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
You're proving my point. It is unlikely someone (or some group) would pay $1,100 to SPAM the DAO. We want to keep it unlikely by not reducing the Dash fee to create a proposal.
1 DASH is more than enough to stop spam, you are being ridiculous!
A high proposal fee won't guarantee quality proposals either, but it will guarantee we miss out on some gems that POs don't dare to list due to the expense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gass

awesomedash

Member
Feb 5, 2021
44
21
48
I support this proposal. Right now preparing, negotiating, submitting and getting the approval from MNOs make the process hard enough that we don't really need a high fee barrier too. We need more proposals, more competition and more active discussions.
 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
A high proposal fee... will guarantee we miss out on some gems that POs don't dare to list due to the expense.
Anyone with a truly good idea is going to be able to raise funds from the community to pay the fee. We've got lots of millionaires around here. The only people hampered by the high fee are the incompetent parasites and the con artists we've collected over the years.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,994
1,156
1,183
Anyone with a truly good idea is going to be able to raise funds from the community to pay the fee. We've got lots of millionaires around here. The only people hampered by the high fee are the incompetent parasites and the con artists we've collected over the years.
I think the proposal system has two areas that could be improved:

1) low voter participation, and
2) lack of MNO engagement at the pre-proposal / concept stage.

Do you agree?

If you agree, how could it be improved?

MNOs should, ideally, be making one good decision, and that is to be more involved with pre-proposals and voting. Yet despite the commitment of 1000 dash, the incentive doesn't seem to be enough. This, to me, seems to be the dichotomy you need to explain; why a 5 dash commitment fosters good proposals yet 1000 dash tied up is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: awesomedash

awesomedash

Member
Feb 5, 2021
44
21
48
I think the proposal system has two areas that could be improved:

1) low voter participation, and
2) lack of MNO engagement at the pre-proposal / concept stage.

Do you agree?

If you agree, how could it be improved?

MNOs should, ideally, be making one good decision, and that is to be more involved with pre-proposals and voting. Yet despite the commitment of 1000 dash, the incentive doesn't seem to be enough. This, to me, seems to be the dichotomy you need to explain; why a 5 dash commitment fosters good proposals yet 1000 dash tied up is not.
Agreed. See this issue and related thread in #mno.
 

GrandMasterDash

Grizzled Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 12, 2015
2,994
1,156
1,183
SGTM. Will support it. Hopefully it is aligned with what @xkcd has in mind.

BTW, the description is empty in DC. Many people check the proposals there.
Thanks for that. I have no idea how to correct the DC thing, Dash Nexus do the submission themselves.
 

vazaki3

Member
Jul 1, 2019
276
90
88
32
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
I fully support this proposal, and I will certainly vote YES for it.

All those who believe that the proposal owners who decided to pay 1 dash are just spammers, they can simply filter these proposals and do not take them into account!!!

So I think those who will vote NO are tottaly unreasonable, and their only goal is to prevent the others from discovering interesting proposals to vote.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Gass and xkcd

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
For reference a similar decision proposal is before the DAO presently. Given the early discussion and general feel for it, I can see the support for it and this one are very low in the community.


Official update: I will not be moving forward with this proposal to the network. I don't believe now is the right time, perhaps we can circle back to the issue in 6-12 months time, but for now the present system will have to suffice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnewPickens

vazaki3

Member
Jul 1, 2019
276
90
88
32
apogee.dynu.net
Dash Address
XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX
  • Like
Reactions: GrandMasterDash