About this discussion, it seems to be that some actors are causing a lot of noise, let's review the conversation with the noise removed.
First developer feedback. I went out seeking developer comment on this proposal and found this:
github.com
Which suggests one developer has thought about this enough to initiate some work on this. On dash central, if we remove actors that are making extreme number of comments we have these top level comments by community members. Bold added by me
MinNOw
3 points,18 hours ago
We have seen how high proposal fees have worked out. Our budget and community has become too stagnant. Making it more approachable will hopefully bring in new blood, ideas, and growth.
splawik21
4 points,21 hours ago
Personally I'd see some kind of mechanism where if the X amount of votes are favorable for change up/down the existing fee goes next cycle lowered/uppered by 1 Dash. This could be managed month by month, if the minimum amount is not reached the fee remains on the same level from the previous cycle.
Anyway I'm in favor on this one.
Some people never reached to the Dash DAO because of the high entry of even creating the proposal and fear of loosing 5 Dash if the proposal does not pass.
TanteStefana
8 points,1 day ago
I'm fucking voting for this primarily because SOME people are afraid to make ANY changes to Dash core anymore. A bunch of timid frightened people that are so conservative they don't realize what made Dash great in the first place.
1 Dash/proposal most likely means more work for the MNOs reviewing more proposals, paying for more oversight. I suspect the first badly written non-verifiable non-custodian proposals wouldn't pass anyway. We don't do that anymore. Hell, lets see what happens!!!
TroyDASH 7 points,1 day ago
I am supporting this proposal. In the long term there might be a better and more complicated solution to handling this. Replacing one arbitrary hard-coded number with another arbitrary hard-coded number might not seem like the greatest, but it's a start, it's easy to do, and with the climate lately with our treasury system barely attracting any *new* activity, lowering the fee modestly like this makes sense.
ahab-dash
4 points,1 day ago
I'm voting yes on this proposal.
Triptolemoose
2 points,1 day ago
A one Dash fee would be better. A five Dash fee seems excessive even at the current DASH market cap, as it only gets you an audience largely made up of kooks.
At one Dash, we can afford to use the treasury system for community decision making as well as voting purposes such as the DIF vote. This would lead to more engagement and participation.
On the other hand, if the Dash price drops significantly from here, we may need tools on DC, DashNexus and DMT to filter the inevitable crypto spam and fake proposals. Fees can always be bumped up again if things get out of control.
lysergic
3 points,1 day ago
Posting on behalf of Discord user `latteisnotcoffee#2769`
----
So here's a story - I wanted to build a Dash based CTF competition - we would set up servers with some method of hacking them and those that get in and capture all the flags first get a prize paid in Dash. There would be general challenges using common software (web servers, FTP, SSH etc), some general crypto challenges and some Dash based ones too. (Here's a link: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-based-ctf-capture-the-flag-competition.51343/ )
It would have been a 24-hour competition with advertisements and PR and would have had smart people come in and compete and expose people to Dash who may not have realized we exist to start with.
It would be between 1-2k USD or so for the actual competition, prizes, rented servers, etc which I personally think would pay back more than it's weight in getting up and coming computer scientists and ethical hacker's eyes on Dash.
My issue? The fuck-off proposal fee made it impossible for me to be confident enough that the MNO's would see the benefit of such a thing - confirmed on the Discord that putting a proposal in while the price was so high would essentially just be burning 5 DASH which I wasn't willing to do, and never went ahead.
Those of you who are saying no to this, why? It would allow me and others to actually put proposals in and get eyes on them and a bit of initiative for those who do want to do something a bit different to further Dash's cause.
Companero
5 points,2 days ago
i wholeheartedly agree with the proposal owner, that we must lower the "barrier to entry",
or we are greatly damaging the potential of our DAO
by having a fixed 5 Dash proposal fee, we are sacrificing and wasting a lot of talent and effort out there,
which could otherwise be deployed to the benefit of Dash (if voted through)
there are a lot of good people out there, some of which have great ideas and/or lots of dedication and boldness,
but who lack the possibility to risk as much as 5 Dash, it really is way too expensive!
unfortunately i also know about the reality of spam proposals, which would surely increase by a lot.
i am still undecided about how i will vote on this, but i believe we should change the proposal fee to something like this:
1 Dash proposal fee (Minimum Fee) = Request from 0 Dash upto 20 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
2 Dash proposal fee = Request from 20.01 Dash upto 40 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
3 Dash proposal fee = Request from 40.01 Dash upto 60 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
4 Dash proposal fee = Request from 60.01 Dash upto 80 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
5 Dash proposal fee = Request from 80.01 Dash upto 100+ Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
Or a similar approach would be to set the proposal fee to a fixed 2.5% or 5% fee of the total requested amount,
irrespecitve of the requested amount.
Something like the above-mentioned Alternatives would be much more reasonable than both of the Extremes of either the expensive 5 Dash or only 1 Dash. The reasonable solution is to have the proposal fee scale according the requested amount. And there are several reasons for it, which would go into too much length explaining here.
But in short, a fixed fee does always instigate proposal owners to maximize their requested amount and to set their demand on the higher end, because the fee will be the same anyway.
This would limit spam attempts by a lot, because it would not allow a 1 Dash cost for giving a shot at requesting 300 Dash for example, with whatever fancy idea a badfaith actor could come up with.
qwizzie
-2 points,1 day ago
'The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased.''
I hope everyone fully understands this condition in the proposal text and its implications.
This is the first top level comment by qwizzie that I found, I believe this actor was critical of the proposal in previous top level posts. I set out only to include one top level post per actor. This bolded comment is intended to provide context.
TaoOfSatoshi
3 points,2 days ago
When the proposal fee was first conceived, the price of Dash was around $10. The 5 Dash fee, or $50, was envisioned as a way to prevent spam. It was not envisioned as a $650 way to prevent legitimate proposals to not come forward due to not being able to afford it.
I would like to see the proposal fee eventually become dynamic, but that's a topic for another day. I would like to see more participation in the DAO, expansion not contraction which is what we are now seeing with the same proposal owners month-in and month-out.
This proposal will not bring the proposal fee to the $50 range as it was when it was originally introduced, but it's much closer and I believe it will spark new ideas for us to vote on. Voting yes.
agnewpickens 2 points,2 days ago
This would also make decision proposals cheaper for the masternodes, allowing MNOs to put importnat matters before the Trust Protectors in an official manner. Voting yes.
name3
2 points,2 days ago
"The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased."
Don't agree with that. I'm going to vote yes anyway, because you can always change that with a vote later on. If we get some huge increase in spam (which I think is unlikely, but possible) we need to be able to react. Its short sighted to try and tie our hands in the future, but ultimately unenforceable anyway.
Comments on the facts: It is easier to lower the fee than to raise it. This fact is a consequence of the way the code is written.
andyfreer2020 1 point,2 days ago
support
AshFrancis
1 point,2 days ago
Yes. I sent 1 Dash to support this proposal being posted as I believe choice and competition is healthy for the network. The incubator model is great but giving more people the opportunity to come before the DAO makes a lot of sense. 5 Dash was an arbitrary amount set many years ago, 1 Dash is equally arbitrary but makes a lot more sense with Dash price where it is and it is a relatively simple change.
geert
-1 point,2 days ago
There are some people here who are addicted to treasury funding even though they lack the ability or proclivity to provide value back to the DAO. It's like crack cocaine to them. We have to keep the five Dash proposal fee in order to protect these unfortunate individuals from themselves.
BTW, can you give me an example of a worthy initiative that is hampered by the five Dash fee?
Some comments are threats to attack our network:
DashUnicorn
0 points,3 hours ago
If you lower the fee to 1 Dash, my buddies and I are going to submit 50000 proposals. The SPAM will be too much and will bring Dash to its knees. To its KNEES! Dash will be permanently damaged from that. The master fuckin plan finally achieved, mission complete. Thank you monero for the funding!
Our community has always needed to weigh the merits of free speech with the burden of unproductive speech. I feel like our community has become pros of listening for the signal through the noise.
Please note I did not take a position on the proposal and this thread is established to discuss the discussion. Comments about the merits of the proposal belong in this other thread.
First developer feedback. I went out seeking developer comment on this proposal and found this:
governance: Implement reduced governance fee by PastaPastaPasta · Pull Request #4241 · dashpay/dash
Inspired by https://www.dashcentral.org/p/reduce-the-proposal-fee-to-one-dash TODO: Test governance objects before and after hardfork Adjust timestamps HF timing for release Consider implicatio...
github.com
Which suggests one developer has thought about this enough to initiate some work on this. On dash central, if we remove actors that are making extreme number of comments we have these top level comments by community members. Bold added by me
MinNOw
3 points,18 hours ago
We have seen how high proposal fees have worked out. Our budget and community has become too stagnant. Making it more approachable will hopefully bring in new blood, ideas, and growth.
splawik21
4 points,21 hours ago
Personally I'd see some kind of mechanism where if the X amount of votes are favorable for change up/down the existing fee goes next cycle lowered/uppered by 1 Dash. This could be managed month by month, if the minimum amount is not reached the fee remains on the same level from the previous cycle.
Anyway I'm in favor on this one.
Some people never reached to the Dash DAO because of the high entry of even creating the proposal and fear of loosing 5 Dash if the proposal does not pass.
TanteStefana
8 points,1 day ago
I'm fucking voting for this primarily because SOME people are afraid to make ANY changes to Dash core anymore. A bunch of timid frightened people that are so conservative they don't realize what made Dash great in the first place.
1 Dash/proposal most likely means more work for the MNOs reviewing more proposals, paying for more oversight. I suspect the first badly written non-verifiable non-custodian proposals wouldn't pass anyway. We don't do that anymore. Hell, lets see what happens!!!
TroyDASH 7 points,1 day ago
I am supporting this proposal. In the long term there might be a better and more complicated solution to handling this. Replacing one arbitrary hard-coded number with another arbitrary hard-coded number might not seem like the greatest, but it's a start, it's easy to do, and with the climate lately with our treasury system barely attracting any *new* activity, lowering the fee modestly like this makes sense.
ahab-dash
4 points,1 day ago
I'm voting yes on this proposal.
Triptolemoose
2 points,1 day ago
A one Dash fee would be better. A five Dash fee seems excessive even at the current DASH market cap, as it only gets you an audience largely made up of kooks.
At one Dash, we can afford to use the treasury system for community decision making as well as voting purposes such as the DIF vote. This would lead to more engagement and participation.
On the other hand, if the Dash price drops significantly from here, we may need tools on DC, DashNexus and DMT to filter the inevitable crypto spam and fake proposals. Fees can always be bumped up again if things get out of control.
lysergic
3 points,1 day ago
Posting on behalf of Discord user `latteisnotcoffee#2769`
----
So here's a story - I wanted to build a Dash based CTF competition - we would set up servers with some method of hacking them and those that get in and capture all the flags first get a prize paid in Dash. There would be general challenges using common software (web servers, FTP, SSH etc), some general crypto challenges and some Dash based ones too. (Here's a link: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-based-ctf-capture-the-flag-competition.51343/ )
It would have been a 24-hour competition with advertisements and PR and would have had smart people come in and compete and expose people to Dash who may not have realized we exist to start with.
It would be between 1-2k USD or so for the actual competition, prizes, rented servers, etc which I personally think would pay back more than it's weight in getting up and coming computer scientists and ethical hacker's eyes on Dash.
My issue? The fuck-off proposal fee made it impossible for me to be confident enough that the MNO's would see the benefit of such a thing - confirmed on the Discord that putting a proposal in while the price was so high would essentially just be burning 5 DASH which I wasn't willing to do, and never went ahead.
Those of you who are saying no to this, why? It would allow me and others to actually put proposals in and get eyes on them and a bit of initiative for those who do want to do something a bit different to further Dash's cause.
Companero
5 points,2 days ago
i wholeheartedly agree with the proposal owner, that we must lower the "barrier to entry",
or we are greatly damaging the potential of our DAO
by having a fixed 5 Dash proposal fee, we are sacrificing and wasting a lot of talent and effort out there,
which could otherwise be deployed to the benefit of Dash (if voted through)
there are a lot of good people out there, some of which have great ideas and/or lots of dedication and boldness,
but who lack the possibility to risk as much as 5 Dash, it really is way too expensive!
unfortunately i also know about the reality of spam proposals, which would surely increase by a lot.
i am still undecided about how i will vote on this, but i believe we should change the proposal fee to something like this:
1 Dash proposal fee (Minimum Fee) = Request from 0 Dash upto 20 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
2 Dash proposal fee = Request from 20.01 Dash upto 40 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
3 Dash proposal fee = Request from 40.01 Dash upto 60 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
4 Dash proposal fee = Request from 60.01 Dash upto 80 Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
5 Dash proposal fee = Request from 80.01 Dash upto 100+ Dash from the DAO (irrespective of months)
Or a similar approach would be to set the proposal fee to a fixed 2.5% or 5% fee of the total requested amount,
irrespecitve of the requested amount.
Something like the above-mentioned Alternatives would be much more reasonable than both of the Extremes of either the expensive 5 Dash or only 1 Dash. The reasonable solution is to have the proposal fee scale according the requested amount. And there are several reasons for it, which would go into too much length explaining here.
But in short, a fixed fee does always instigate proposal owners to maximize their requested amount and to set their demand on the higher end, because the fee will be the same anyway.
This would limit spam attempts by a lot, because it would not allow a 1 Dash cost for giving a shot at requesting 300 Dash for example, with whatever fancy idea a badfaith actor could come up with.
qwizzie
-2 points,1 day ago
'The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased.''
I hope everyone fully understands this condition in the proposal text and its implications.
This is the first top level comment by qwizzie that I found, I believe this actor was critical of the proposal in previous top level posts. I set out only to include one top level post per actor. This bolded comment is intended to provide context.
TaoOfSatoshi
3 points,2 days ago
When the proposal fee was first conceived, the price of Dash was around $10. The 5 Dash fee, or $50, was envisioned as a way to prevent spam. It was not envisioned as a $650 way to prevent legitimate proposals to not come forward due to not being able to afford it.
I would like to see the proposal fee eventually become dynamic, but that's a topic for another day. I would like to see more participation in the DAO, expansion not contraction which is what we are now seeing with the same proposal owners month-in and month-out.
This proposal will not bring the proposal fee to the $50 range as it was when it was originally introduced, but it's much closer and I believe it will spark new ideas for us to vote on. Voting yes.
agnewpickens 2 points,2 days ago
This would also make decision proposals cheaper for the masternodes, allowing MNOs to put importnat matters before the Trust Protectors in an official manner. Voting yes.
name3
2 points,2 days ago
"The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased."
Don't agree with that. I'm going to vote yes anyway, because you can always change that with a vote later on. If we get some huge increase in spam (which I think is unlikely, but possible) we need to be able to react. Its short sighted to try and tie our hands in the future, but ultimately unenforceable anyway.
Comments on the facts: It is easier to lower the fee than to raise it. This fact is a consequence of the way the code is written.
andyfreer2020 1 point,2 days ago
support
AshFrancis
1 point,2 days ago
Yes. I sent 1 Dash to support this proposal being posted as I believe choice and competition is healthy for the network. The incubator model is great but giving more people the opportunity to come before the DAO makes a lot of sense. 5 Dash was an arbitrary amount set many years ago, 1 Dash is equally arbitrary but makes a lot more sense with Dash price where it is and it is a relatively simple change.
geert
-1 point,2 days ago
There are some people here who are addicted to treasury funding even though they lack the ability or proclivity to provide value back to the DAO. It's like crack cocaine to them. We have to keep the five Dash proposal fee in order to protect these unfortunate individuals from themselves.
BTW, can you give me an example of a worthy initiative that is hampered by the five Dash fee?
Some comments are threats to attack our network:
DashUnicorn
0 points,3 hours ago
If you lower the fee to 1 Dash, my buddies and I are going to submit 50000 proposals. The SPAM will be too much and will bring Dash to its knees. To its KNEES! Dash will be permanently damaged from that. The master fuckin plan finally achieved, mission complete. Thank you monero for the funding!
Our community has always needed to weigh the merits of free speech with the burden of unproductive speech. I feel like our community has become pros of listening for the signal through the noise.
Please note I did not take a position on the proposal and this thread is established to discuss the discussion. Comments about the merits of the proposal belong in this other thread.
