Regarding the proposal to reduce the proposal fee [META]

[qwizzie]

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 ?

 

[Geert]

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.

 

[xkcd]

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?

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.!

This from TheRudeDashMan21. Appalling.

 

[qwizzie]

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.

 

[Miner237]

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]

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.

 

[xkcd]

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]

* 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.

 

[p5yc071c]

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]

* 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?

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

 

[Darren]

I believe you are actively trying to mislead the community with the post below.

First off, no one is forced to vote. Everyone can abstain. I think you're aware of that qwizzie.

What I did was go through the Dash Central discussion and copy the first top level post that I saw from each actor.

Your cite me and misrepresent the content of my message, this is called constructing a straw man. You then suggest that my content in incorrect because your misrepresentation of my content is incorrect. This is an example of a logical fallacy.

I'm concerned about my comments about you in posts above. I don't respect dishonest ways of communicating.

 

[qwizzie]

Do not ever try to pm me again, you are completely dishonest and i do not want any contact with you now or in the future.

Calling me a liar is one thing, but calling everyone who voted no on this proposal a liar is something else entirely.

Unbelieveable. A total lack of objectivity and highly biased.

And for the record, all i did was point to two top level posts of mine that you completely overlooked in your first post, which gave a good explanation on why i voted no. --> https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...duce-the-proposal-fee-meta.51799/#post-227339

 

[xkcd]

 

[Geert]

Heh. Can we all just SIMMER DOWN and get back to debating the actual merits or lack thereof of this idea?

 

[Geert]

I am voting this down with what masternodes I have left, but I kind of hope it passes. I want to start a new type of proposal that will be called "OFFICIAL DAO CENSURE" so that ne'er-do-wells around here can be punished. We need this.

 

[qwizzie]

Well, i do remember a certain person telling us a few years ago to have some fun with the budget proposal system and play with it a bit. At the time i thought 5 Dash proposal fee was a bit too expensive to play with the budget proposal system, but maybe it will change people's mind if the proposal fee is reduced to 1 Dash. Who knows.

 

[TanteStefana]

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.

I'm sorry Quizzie but this proposal has nothing to do with proposals that request funds for 24 months vs 3 vs 1, it's about the proposal fee. I remember the DashCrypto proposals and I voted no on all of them BECAUSE of the 24 month time span. 24 month time spans are pretty much a no no to all voters, so Julio shot himself in the foot. But what does that have to do with the fee? I fear that the fee is so unattainable to so many (especially where Dash can do well, like South America) that all the high fee does in ensure that only the biggest projects can afford to request funds. The DCG, DIF and Incubator. It's looking like protectionism, to make sure the big boys can keep all the funds.

As far as voter participation, I honestly don't think it will matter one way or another. Either MNOs vote or they don't. Those that vote will look at each proposal and vote as usual. If there is a bunch of spam, I can ignore it, or spend 5 minutes voting no on them. If there are 50,000 new spam , I'll write a script, LOL. (this would require learning to script, thus the LOL)

You know what? I think maybe the developers should have put a time limit on all proposals. No longer than 3 months at a time. That way long term requests can't slip under the nose of voters.

 

[qwizzie]

I'm sorry Quizzie but this proposal has nothing to do with proposals that request funds for 24 months vs 3 vs 1, it's about the proposal fee. I remember the DashCrypto proposals and I voted no on all of them BECAUSE of the 24 month time span. 24 month time spans are pretty much a no no to all voters, so Julio shot himself in the foot. But what does that have to do with the fee? I fear that the fee is so unattainable to so many (especially where Dash can do well, like South America) that all the high fee does in ensure that only the biggest projects can afford to request funds. The DCG, DIF and Incubator. It's looking like protectionism, to make sure the big boys can keep all the funds.

As far as voter participation, I honestly don't think it will matter one way or another. Either MNOs vote or they don't. Those that vote will look at each proposal and vote as usual. If there is a bunch of spam, I can ignore it, or spend 5 minutes voting no on them. If there are 50,000 new spam , I'll write a script, LOL. (this would require learning to script, thus the LOL)

You know what? I think maybe the developers should have put a time limit on all proposals. No longer than 3 months at a time. That way long term requests can't slip under the nose of voters.

Several Dah community members that are voting yes on this decision proposals already stated the proposal fee is not the sole cause of our problems and reducing the proposal fee will not fix everything :

TroyDASH 1 point,4 days ago

Interest in the treasury has waned to the point now where the DIF is coming in every month to mop up the remaining amount. In general, when you tax an activity, you get less of it. The fee reduction will not solve this, but right now is a time when reducing the barrier to entry is more important than reducing spam.

Right now is a time that the market is reducing the barrier to entry for us. No need to further help the market in that area.

TroyDASH 2 points,6 days ago

I agree that the primary factor(s) affecting the lower treasury activity is not due to the proposal fee; however I see the proposal fee as exacerbating the problem. Reducing the fee will reduce some of the friction.

Maybe we should take the time to research the problem in-depth and explore our options (what Ryan Taylor was planning to do after Dash Platform gets launched on Mainnet end of this year and which this decision proposal now disrupts).

andyfreer2020 0 points,4 days ago

No i'm saying that the Gov is a marketplace where people sell ideas to improve Dash for funding from the blockchain.

What has happened is that for anything 'official' it's become monopolized so any prices can be set and you get what you're given with no alternatives.

The 5 Dash fees isn't the cause obvs but it is one way to try to redress this now... it helps competition because the barrier to entry is lower.

Again the market is already lowering the barrier for entry for us, no need to further aid the market.

And then we have this view from the creator of this decision proposal (which i suspect is the same view for many yes voters) :

DashCollective (proposal owner) 1 point,4 days ago

Yes, qwizzie the $660 USD fee to post a proposal is not a hindrance at all!

https://www.google.com/search?q=$132+*+5

A case of someone from DashCollective (i don't know who exactly) only looking at the fiat proposal fee and somehow finding $660 USD too high.
The data i gathered does not even remotely support that, there were proposals created all the way to the very top of our Dash bullrun in 2017,

Time period 4 juni 2017 - 15 aug 2018
Dash price : from $143 pumped to $1500 and then dumped to $153

Budget proposals created between 4 June 2017 - 17 aug 2018
Link :

https://imgur.com/a/Y3XuN5b

So if the proposal fee was not a problem back then, then how can it suddenly be a problem now ? Specially in a time when the fiat price of the 5 dash proposal fee is getting lower by the day (5 dash = $580 !!),

I actually took the time to gather data about the proposal fee and how that impacted the created proposals over time (last 4 years)

https://imgur.com/a/WkF27uY

https://imgur.com/I5Zqm2g

Source : https://www.dashninja.pl/governance.html

I could not find any impact of the proposal fee on our number of budget proposals, so i am very doubtfull lowering the proposal fee will have any effect.

What lowering the proposal fee from 5 dash all the way to 1 dash could do is increase low quality budget proposals / spam proposals with long time periods / person-focused decision proposals and it could have a negative impact on Dash Central itself (the place where most of the budget proposal discussions take place) when it gets that cheap to just launch a proposal for 1 dash proposal fee and get comment power and up/downvote power over comments in the Dash budget section of Dash Central for life, regardless if the proposal passes or fails, regardless of the duration of that proposal. Anti-Dash actors just gonna love this : only 1 dash to troll the Dash community for life, directly in our Dash budget section of Dash Central.

I am of the opinion if something is not broken, then do not fix it. And specially not fix it in the midst of a bear market that is lowering the barrier to entry already (not that i think that barrier to entry ever was our problem). And lastly do not introduce a fix for something that is not broken, when that fix could potentially bring us more problems.

With regards to voting participation not being important : the previous voting participation in 2017 on reducing the proposal fee from 5 dash to 1 dash (not initiated by DCG) had 1,522 votes, which was divided pretty much evenly between yes (790) and no (719) supporters and with 13 MNO's voting to abstain.

Source : https://www.dashcentral.org/p/REDUCE_PROPOSAL_FEES_TO_1_DASH

Our current decision proposal does not even come close to those numbers, it is like MNO's just got bored with this topic entirely (currently 305 yes / 35 no)
Same with all those other decison proposals, very very low voting particcipation. Maybe this changes in the next 8 days, but somehow i doubt it.
This could only get worse if it just cost 1 dash to launch a decision proposal.

As i said before, i think the decision proposals and the budget proposals should be separated in our governance and budget system, untill that happens i don't think it is wise to mess with the proposal fee at all.

Two problems i feel deserve far more attention, then this proposal fee discussion :

* lack of marketing causing people outside this Dash community to get unfamiliar with Dash and its budget system
* steady decline of voting participation among masternode operators

 

[Gass]

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 like this.

Maybe this is a little bit out of topic but even if the proposal fee is decreased by 4 ᕭ the problem will persist due to the volatility. Wouldn't it be better to pledge the Dash proposal fee to a fix usd amount?

 

[vazaki3]

No point discussing things with xkcd it seems, who apparently considers 24 month duration proposals normal .

A 24 month duration proposal is tottaly normal, functional and usefull, especially in case we have a governance proposal or an elected representative that, after being elected, we want to preserve the oportunity to downvote it/him before the end of its validity/service.

I would suggest to have also 48 month proposals, or even proposals that can last for a lifetime (80 years), but not for more than that.