Regarding the proposal to reduce the proposal fee [META]

Darren

Active Member
Aug 3, 2016
214
165
103
New Hampshire
www.darrentapp.com
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:


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.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Gass and xkcd

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
It's also possible that the hostile comment was said in jest.
Yeah, who knows? He seems luny toonz to me. I am surprised people are falling to pieces over this, it really isn't such a big deal.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
So only one comment of mine was included, which was an off the hand remark. The rest are pretty much all posts from those in favor.
You could at least include this one of mine :

I can't help but feel a lot of the comments supporting this proposal are based on an underbelly feeling, which to me seems influenced by personal assumptions and a somewhat pessimistic view (most likely due to the long altcoins bear market), then being motivated with actual data about the proposal fee and its impact on the number of budget proposals.

Actual data on the number of budget proposals : Source : https://www.dashninja.pl/governance.html

This data shows a healthy number of budget proposals over the last 3.5 years and a reduction of proposals in the last 5 or 6 months.

How can the proposal fee be considered too high throughout this time period, when the number of proposals were fine for a very large majority of that time ? Does that in itself not point to other factors, then simply the proposal fee somehow being too high ?

Other factors like not being able to reach people outside this Dash community ? Not due to the proposal fee, but due to being unfamiliar with Dash in the first place ? What will lowering the proposal fee accomplish in such a situation ?

Instead of blaming the 5 Dash proposal fee for everything, we should try to strenghten our marketing so we can actually reach people that are unfamiliar with Dash.
My very first comment however was this one :

I will be voting NO. My reasons for my NO vote can be found here : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...oposal-fee-to-1-dash.51329/page-3#post-226623
 
Last edited:

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
It's also possible that the hostile comment was said in jest.
Could also be that it was from ICEBREAKER (a Monero fanatic that was mostly active on the Bitcointalk forum and later bought masternodes to try to influence Dash governance from within). If it is him, i would actually expect more longterm spam proposals if the proposal fee drops to just 1 Dash as he has / had a sizeable number of masternodes.
 
Last edited:

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
If it is him, i would actually expect more longterm spam proposals if the proposal fee drops to just 1 Dash.
Why isn't he doing it now? What makes 1 DASH so attractive to a spammer and yet at 5 DASH we've NEVER had a single spammer? Where is the threshold? Is it 2 DASH? 4 DASH? How do you know so much? Are you iCEY?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAOMN and Gass

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
Why isn't he doing it now? What makes 1 DASH so attractive to a spammer and yet at 5 DASH we've NEVER had a single spammer? Where is the threshold? Is it 2 DASH? 4 DASH? How do you know so much? Are you iCEY?
I know rango from Dash Central at one point had to kick ICEBREAKER with his many masternodes from Dash Central and excluded his masternodes from his monitoring and restart script because of his inflamatory anti-dash behavior. Ask rango if you don't believe me. Also there was a lot of comment exploit (massive upvoting / downvoting of comments) going on at Dash Central at the time, possibly indicating multiple Dash Central accounts were used by one person to enable this.

You asking me if i am iCEY is beyond ridiculous, people who know me should know better then to ask that.
Question i have for you : why don't you know all this ?

It is well known among people who were active on the Bitcointalk forum and were / are using Dash Whale / Dash Central.
With regards to never having a single spammer, thats just incorrect. We had dashcrypto cluttering our budgetlist for 24 months :

1626086915838.png

And then we had proposals like these :



Both from 'realist'

 
Last edited:

Darren

Active Member
Aug 3, 2016
214
165
103
New Hampshire
www.darrentapp.com
Thanks for the clarification @qwizzie

I value your contribution to our discussions very much.

Why did you choose to add an off handed comment to the discussion and dilute your other post that you must think is more important for people to read?

I value your perspective @qwizzie If I choose to seek it out (and I have) and I find 20+ posts to wade through some of which only make sense in context that makes it harder for me to assess your opinion, knowlege, and perspective (which is what I want). I don't think this situation is unique to me, and it's not unique to you.

When a paper is written for a publication lots of care is taken to make sure the reader will have the best chance of understanding the content with the least amount of effort. @qwizzie, please consider the burden that writing places on the people who want your opinion (again as I do). Your readers want to be comfortable and acquire your view and knowledge in the most time-efficient way possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gass

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
Thanks for the clarification @qwizzie

I value your contribution to our discussions very much.

Why did you choose to add an off handed comment to the discussion and dilute your other post that you must think is more important for people to read?
I did not dilute these two specific posts that i referenced earlier, you just overlooked them.

One i made a hour ago, and the other i made as first comment / one of the first comments while referring to the pre-discussion thread where i explained my reasons for voting no, together with a picture of spam proposals. Picture links have a higher chance of getting overlooked in Dash Central (not everyone likes clicking on links) so that is why i was initially only referring to that pre-discussion thread on dash.org/forum.

Also i would like to emphasize when a proposal gets launched of which the proposal fee has been funded by at least 6 people, who all have a stake at having this proposal pass, it is not unusual to see some heavy upvoting / downvoting of comments. There is a competitive element in there.
 
Last edited:

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
So the first off hand comment I ran into and put in the OP is of the same value as the other posts you brought up separately in this thread?
I value the other two more actually. But having a condition in the proposal text that specificly mentions that the proposal fee can only be lowered and never be raised again, is important too. Important enough for me to mention it separately. Which i did on DC.
 

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
I am a bit torn on this issue. Why is it being pushed so hard? From what I recall this exact thing failed twice already. My suspicion is that the proponents of this idea want to be able to create many proposals, some of which would be for funding themselves and their allies, and some of which would be for the purpose of keeping DCG off balance.

The reason I am torn is because I would personally love to create a proposal to ask the network to direct the developers to remove CoinJoin from the protocol.
 

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
@qwizzie let's get one thing straight here and now, just because you don't like a proposal doesn't make it spam! Julio registered the dash.crypto domain and had some very sensible content up there including some Amanda videos and the series of three I'm DASH and I'm Bitcoin videos which were great by the way! The proposals in question were supposed to be treated like top-up proposals, eg similar to a pay as you go cell service. He was going to add more content to the site as the funds came in to allow him to do the work, it wasn't an unreasonable plan.

Ultimately the reason Julio's site was passed in is because of concerns of him portraying DASH in a manner that might like it look like a security and him not back linking to the source of dash content at dash.org, some people saw it as a threat to steal the dash brand, coupled with his psychosis during the funding period he copped a lot of NO votes after initially having some proposals funded and hence forth the proposals have been colloquially referred to as 'spam' though they never were and you know it !
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
@qwizzie let's get one thing straight here and now, just because you don't like a proposal doesn't make it spam! Julio registered the dash.crypto domain and had some very sensible content up there including some Amanda videos and the series of three I'm DASH and I'm Bitcoin videos which were great by the way! The proposals in question were supposed to be treated like top-up proposals, eg similar to a pay as you go cell service. He was going to add more content to the site as the funds came in to allow him to do the work, it wasn't an unreasonable plan.

Ultimately the reason Julio's site was passed in is because of concerns of him portraying DASH in a manner that might like it look like a security and him not back linking to the source of dash content at dash.org, some people saw it as a threat to steal the dash brand, coupled with his psychosis during the funding period he copped a lot of NO votes after initially having some proposals funded and hence forth the proposals have been colloquially referred to as 'spam' though they never were and you know it !
And it was totally normal each and every one of those proposals had a time duration of 24 months.
Because they were ' top-up' proposals .. sure.

Lets hope not more of these 'top-up' proposals emerge with a 24 month time period, if this 1 Dash proposal fee passes.
Or see more decision proposals emerge that are more focused on discrediting Dash community members.

Both are major red flags in my eyes.
 
Last edited:

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
I am a bit torn on this issue. Why is it being pushed so hard? From what I recall this exact thing failed twice already. My suspicion is that the proponents of this idea want to be able to create many proposals, some of which would be for funding themselves and their allies, and some of which would be for the purpose of keeping DCG off balance.

The reason I am torn is because I would personally love to create a proposal to ask the network to direct the developers to remove CoinJoin from the protocol.
Gerhard, I know you are just trying to infuriate me, so I will exercise restraint and not give you the satisfication. Firstly, TheDashCollective said in their proposal who funded them.

1626101815865.png

I can reveal that the entity referred to as ` FixTheProposalFee ` is indeed the DashQueenApp. The proposal was funded out of this address, https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?XcCEHZdhBRVfi4LWM9tbdLZ2nnLo1m944L.htm

1626101982191.png

Each of us chipping a mostly equal share, these people are not radicals, they are not subversive, they have no agenda, they are merely folks that agree on this one thing enough to support it.

I have repeatedly told you that before approaching the DAO I did my research and discussed with devs the feasibility of this change and their support of it and not until I had that did I go to the DAO with the proposal. This is not cowboy shit, this is the real deal and the big update I will post on the DC thread next week is that we already have WIP PR with the code changes ready to go. Keep it a secret for now, I know you will. ;)


Hey, Gerhard, I can tell you that you will never get DCG support to remove PS, and if you go in behind their backs without having the common decency to bring them on-board with you, I will roast you good and proper over it.

You contribute very little and serve to try and dis-rail this project at every turn and enough is enough, you are not acting in good faith and you know it. Please take time out of the community and reflect on this before engaging us again.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
So basically we are forced to vote over something that one specific dev is still testing for safety ?




This should have been tested before the 1 Dash proposal even became live on the network.
Now this Git Pull is just hanging in a WIP phase and we don't even know if its safe to implement (see last step on todo list)

I did my research and discussed with devs the feasibility of this change and their support of it and not until I had that did I go to the DAO with the proposal
Did UdjinM6 not mention to you guys (DashCollective) that it requires non-trivial coding to raise the proposal fee ever again if this 1 Dash proposal passes ?
So we have 1 dev in a Github Pull request WIP phase to still test this and another dev warning us that it requires non-trivial coding to raise the proposal fee ever again.
And we have the proposal itself warning us the the proposal fee can only get lowered, never raised.

A rush job does come to mind. I also seem to recall from a previous Quarterly Call Q & A session that Ryan Taylor wanted to postpone this whole proposal fee discussion untill after Dash Platform was launched on Mainnet, any comment on that ? Why the rush ?
 
Last edited:

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
And it was totally normal each and every one of those proposals had a time duration of 24 months.
Can we check our understanding here and confirm that if a multi-month proposal gets funded initially and later receives too many NO votes, the superblock will stop paying it out? You seem to think it will automatically pay for 24 months, which is not the case.
 

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
So basically we are forced to vote over something that one specific dev is still testing for safety ?
You really don't understand how development works, do you? :oops:

This should have been tested before the 1 Dash proposal even became live on the network.
Sure, the devs code up every single possible change upfront before anything is even requested. :p Basically everthing you could possibily imagine has been coded up somewhere in a secret repo ready to go should anyone ask for it. Pleaaaasse, you are are WAY out of your depth here, go and play cards or something and leave the topics you don't understand to those that do.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
No point discussing things with xkcd it seems, who apparently considers 24 month duration proposals normal (it is rather abnormal, i never seen a proposal with such a long duration before, let alone 5 proposals in a row) and who still does not get that if a 24 months proposal gets created it stays active for 24 months in our budget list and fully visible on Dash Central, despite it not getting paid due to no votes and heavy down votes.

And resorting to personal degrading insults is just a bad way to dicsuss matters, particularly when someone like xkcd has been involved with this specific budget proposal from the start. Maybe someone else from DashCollective can answer my questions instead ?

What is the deal with the proposal stating that the proposal fee can only be lowered, never raised and then getting conflicted messages about that later on through the comments ?

I seem to recall from a previous Quarterly Call Q & A session that Ryan Taylor wanted to postpone this whole proposal fee discussion untill after Dash Platform was launched on Mainnet, any comment on that ? Why the rush ?
 
Last edited:

Geert

Member
Aug 26, 2015
259
82
88
Gerhard, I know you are just trying to infuriate me..
The effect of my comments on your endocrine system does not concern me in the least. Please get over yourself.

Hey, Gerhard, I can tell you that you will never get DCG support to remove PS, and if you go in behind their backs without having the common decency to bring them on-board with you, I will roast you good and proper over it.
Why do you imagine they unbranded PrivateSend? Anyway, let's save this discussion for the proper time and place.

Please take time out of the community and reflect on this before engaging us again.
No, thank you.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: xkcd

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
No point discussing things with xkcd it seems, who apparently considers 24 month duration proposals normal (it is rather abnormal, i never seen a proposal with such a long duration before, let alone 5 proposals in a row) and who still does not get that if a 24 months proposal gets created it stays active for 24 months in our budget list and visible on Dash Central, despite it not getting paid due to no votes.

Qwizzie, what you think this does?

1626108589050.png
:rolleyes:


And resorting to personal degrading insults is just a bad way to discuss matters, particularly when you have been involved with this specific budget proposal from the start.
Oh and you pretend you have not been reading the DC thread, or is it justified because the one doing the naming calling is on your side? Please.!

1626108875552.png
This from TheRudeDashMan21. Appalling.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
You are generalizing here, i am not therealDashman21 yet you are treating me like i am. For the record i am just as appalled by therealDashman21 behavior as you, which is why i have ignored him so far on Dash Central.

You are also still not grasping the problem with 24 month budget proposals in Dash Central. The delete option needs a higher number of support to delete a proposal (66% ?), which is why these 5 budget proposals could not be deleted throughout those 24 months. Too low voting participation.

I will ignore you from now on and wait for the answer on my questions from other members of DashCollective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xkcd

Miner237

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
May 28, 2014
516
226
213
You are generalizing here, i am not therealDashman21 yet you are treating me like i am. For the record i am just as appalled by therealDashman21 behavior as you, which is why i have ignored him so far on Dash Central.

You are also still not grasping the problem with 24 month budget proposals in Dash Central. The delete option needs a higher number of support to delete a proposal (66% ?), which is why these 5 budget proposals could not be deleted throughout those 24 months. Too low voting participation.

I will ignore you from now on and wait for the answer on my questions from other members of DashCollective.
Can we reduce the max duration to 12?

But tbh it's just visual spam at that point its not effecting the network in anyway, just the way we look at open proposals. There can be UI fix for this similar to your junk folder in email
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
Can we reduce the max duration to 12?

But tbh it's just visual spam at that point its not effecting the network in anyway, just the way we look at open proposals. There can be UI fix for this similar to your junk folder in email
i would have preferred some time to debate this all, and see what Ryan Taylor comes up with after Dash Platform gets released on Dash Mainnet (he had some ideas on how to improve voting participation). Now this 1 Dash proposal fee decision proposal is up without much consideration for increasing voting participation and we end up debating anti-spam measurements to control the possible side effects of this decision proposal.

Maybe the treshold for deleting proposals (66% ?) could be lowered due to our current low voting participation level or maybe other measurements could be taken. I am not sure.
 
Last edited:

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
i would have preferred some time to debate this all, and see what Ryan Taylor comes up with after Dash Platform gets released on Dash Mainnet (he had some ideas on how to improve voting participation). Now this 1 Dash proposal fee decision proposal is up without much consideration for increasing voting participation and we end up debating anti-spam measurements to control the possible side effects of this decision proposal.
@moderator this is FUD! Just because this man didn't get his personal invitation to discuss the topic, he is claiming ignorance, this is a strawman, if a Police officer pulls you over on the road and charges you with a traffic violation, you can't claim you weren't aware of the rules! In my pre-proposal I reference all the prior discussions on this matter and most recently there was the Choose Your Own Proposal Fee proposal, also, your comrade TheRudeDashMan21 himself pointed out how many times this has been discussed, this topic is one of the most discussed in the dash community. How can you sit there and say it wasn't discussed, you are ignorant !

Also, what is this appeal to authority all the time? DCG is one entity, are we unable to contribute to the fate of DASH? What ever happened to decentralisation? Why the constant appeal to authority? What do you think they would say? Well here you go, Mr. head in sand, here's the question addressed by Ryan in his recent AMA.


Now you stop fudding! to say this is sudden or not fully considered, is quite false and I must confess I am starting to change my opinion of you from respectful to doubtful.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,713
827
183
* Appeal to moderator in here for censorship with unfounded accussations of FUD
* Appeal to moderator on dash central to censorship comments on proposals (to restrict comments to only 5 comments on proposals)
* Some people clearly lacking the ability to discuss proposals objectively and without emotions getting in the way
* Resorting to generalization from several Dash community members during the discussion of this topic
* Using offensive language and degrading comments towards other Dash community members

This topic (and maybe decision proposals in general) really does bring out the worse in certain people, both with the yes voters and the no voters.
Luckily there are a few people that are still able to discuss things in a calm and rational way, which i am thankfull for.

Dash Central is not merely a place to state your own position on the topic, it is also place to engage in healthy proposal discussion (same for forums like Reddit and dash.org/forum)
A place where multiple views on topics can be given, it is important to preserve that.
Of course people will need to be open for that and give other people space to express their opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: xkcd

p5yc071c

New Member
Oct 10, 2016
20
3
3
38
This space is very tribal. We need to build a meritocracy.

Am I the only person who thinks that protocol level changes should be treated more carefully?
 

xkcd

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Feb 19, 2017
253
225
103
australia
mnowatch.org
Dash Address
XpoZXRfr2iFxWhfRSAK3j1jww9xd4tJVez
* Appeal to moderator....
I was half joking about that, note the @ never linked an actual account and no moderator ever voted in my favour. My intention was merely to bring to focus that this is getting out of hand and it was late. Anyhow, nice to deflect from the topic at hand, the proposal and instead complain about how we are discussing it. You have your Ryan's take on it now, you can see he is fence sitting on it, while acknowledging that something has to be done about it is sometime. Not very helpful. I can see support coming in, you can see a PR already in the works for this change, are you sweating yet, Qwizzie? DM me and tell me what's really bothering you. Why are you really so psychotically opposed to this simple change, what does it mean to you?

1626165473695.png
Source: https://mnowatch.org/leaderboard/analysis/?20210713082001