Regarding the proposal to reduce the proposal fee [META]

[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 :

http://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)

http://imgur.com/a/WkF27uY

http://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.

 

[Darren]

Regarding pegging to a specific USD amount.

Two challenges:

1) The cost (time and/or money) of such a change is signifigantly more that the proposed change.
2) The solution could introduce security vulnerabilities.

The security problem is how do you have an oracle reporting the USD price that is not hacked? I believe this is possible but is a Research and Development Problem.

In the future Dash Platform may support oracles. If oracles were live for six months, maybe the network should revisit this idea @Gabriel Salinas

Cheers!!

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]

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.

Troll refers and occurs when talking. There is no troll when voting.

Dash community can simply ignore troll proposals, by refusing to cast a vote on them.

Furthermore, it is very important to implement a tag system when casting budget proposals, and also a tag system when voting for them.

The voter, along with his/her yes/no/abstain/number vote, should also be allowed to put tags to the proposal.
That way, whenever the "troll" tag becomes popular, this is a clear sign of the quality of the proposal and makes it easier for other voters to ignore the proposal and filter it from their view.

It is very important for the Dash community to succeed in the task of implementing an effective decentralized governance system. This is exactly what the centralized world monetary system is afraid of.

 

[xkcd]

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.

I could find no evidence that a lower proposal fee would increase spam, there was no spam when DASH was $35 and none at $1600. Spam has a very distinct meaning, it is something of no material value. The dash.crypto proposals were not spam, the reasons you give for them being spam are invalid

• Too long duration
• Low quality project
• Top-up model

None of those are indications of spam, the proposal was however of little value to DASH and potentially harmful since Julio seemed to be trying to wrestle control of the network for himself.

 

[qwizzie]

I could find no evidence that a lower proposal fee would increase spam, there was no spam when DASH was $35 and none at $1600.

That is because Dash proposal fee itself was not $35, it was $175 (lowest price x 5) and dash proposal fee was not $1,600, it was $8,000 (highest price x5)
This decision proposal which imposes a -80% reduction on the proposal fee (from 5 dash to 1 dash) drastically lowers all that, possibly opening the door wide open for spam proposals / low quality proposals / person-focused decision propsals, possibly leading to even lower voting participation among MNO's.

Then there is a very optimistic view from many yes voters that the proposal fee can always be raised afterwards if necessary (eventhough it requires non-trivial coding from devs, due to our multi-month proposals getting invalidated if we try to raise it later on), or that we can implement some kind of spam filter.

Which makes me wonder if this has been really thought through, if all possible negative side effects have been fully taken into consideration before launching this decision proposal.

We have a very large inconsistency in the proposal text (''The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased''), which gets addrressed only somewhere in the 423 comments on Dash Central (and somewhere on Discord apparently), and we have a dev already started coding the implementation of this decision proposal 8 days ago (almost at the start of this proposal), with a cliff hanger if that implementation can even be implemented :

Source : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4241

Dash Central comments about this :

 

[vazaki3]

This decision proposal which imposes a -80% reduction on the proposal fee (from 5 dash to 1 dash) drastically lowers all that, possibly opening the door wide open for spam proposals / low quality proposals / person-focused decision propsals, possibly leading to even lower voting participation among MNO's.

The reduction of the proposal fee could be implemented as a spork, and in case your worries become truth, the network could easily revert the decision.

Together with a very optimistic view from many yes voters that it can always be changed afterwards if necessary (eventhough it requires non-trivial coding from devs, due to our multi-month proposals getting invalidated if we try to raise it later on), or that we can implement some kind of spam filter.

Invalidate a multi-month proposal because the proposal owner paid a fixed proposal fee and later on the proposal fee was increased? It makes no sence! No need to invalidate it!

Additionaly the filtering and the classification of the proposals is a great idea, which is waiting patiently for the dash community to embrace it.

 

[qwizzie]

Invalidate a multi-month proposal because the proposal owner paid a fixed proposal fee and later on the proposal fee was increased?
It makes no sence! No need to invalidate it!

As you can see this is directly coming from the creator of this decision proposal. Personally if UdjinM6 (Dash lead developer) states something like that, i tend to believe him.

 

[vazaki3]

So, the way they wrote the code makes difficult for the proposal fee to increase.

In that case, after reducing the proposal fee, lets be prepared and plan to change the code.

IF SPORK_24_PROPOSAL_FEE changes value THEN do not invalidate old proposals.

It is not big deal, IMHO.

Could you please point to the original quote of @UdjinM6 ?

 

[qwizzie]

So, the way they wrote the code makes difficult for the proposal fee to increase.

In that case, lets change the code.

IF SPORK_FEE is set to 0 again THEN do not invalidate old proposals.

It is not big deal, IMHO.

Could you please point to the original quote of @UdjinM6 ?

You have to ask DashCollective for that, i just made a screenshot of the conversation between name3 and DashCollective where this came to light.
The screenshot was from comments in Dash Central.

 

[vazaki3]

You have to ask DashCollective for that, i just made a screenshot of the conversation between name3 and DashCollective where this came to light.
The screenshot was from comments in Dash Central.

Thanks for the info.
But I refuse to participate to dashcentral, because they require for me to reveal my voting address.

 

[qwizzie]

I refuse to participate to dashcentral, because they require for me to reveal my voting address.

Fine, just ask DashCollective for the full quote of UdjinM6 or a complete screenshot of their conversation.

 

[Geert]

DashCollective is a confederacy of mediocrities and unemployables who's main goal in life is to receive free money from the Dash treasury every month. They banded together to defeat RT's proposal to have unspent treasury funds shared by MNOs and miners. That was not in their interest. Why they would want to lower the proposal fee is obvious.

And meanwhile Dash continues to lose mindshare. Someone I spoke to recently said, "You don't hear much about Dash anymore." The market cap of Shiba Inu is twice as much as Dash.

 

[vazaki3]

DashCollective is a confederacy of mediocrities and unemployables who's main goal in life is to receive free money from the Dash treasury every month. They banded together to defeat RT's proposal to have unspent treasury funds shared by MNOs and miners. That was not in their interest. Why they would want to lower the proposal fee is obvious.

And meanwhile Dash continues to lose mindshare. Someone I spoke to recently said, "You don't hear much about Dash anymore." The market cap of Shiba Inu is twice as much as Dash.

DashCollective DCG is a confederacy of mediocrities, unemployables, eternal salarymen and hidden government agents who's main goal in life is to neutralize and destroy Dash's decentralized governance system and receive free money from the Dash treasury every month. DCG received 295438 USD salaries for june-august 2020, for doing almost nothing!!!!

Due to the pathetic governance of DCG (alligned to the US, EU and China regulators who wish Dash's destruction) Dash continues to lose mindshare, and falls into the pit of despair and oblivion.

 

[Darren]

@Geert Your logical fallacy is ad hominem.

DashCollective is a confederacy of mediocrities and unemployables

 

[Geert]

Since you like Latin, let's use some more Latin. Cui Bono?

Who benefits if we lower the proposal fee? I would say it's the same people who we've been funding on and off for years who refuse to stop pestering the DAO for funds. These people don't have the ability to help us. They've become like courtiers -- persons who seeks favor by flattery, charm, etc.

 

[vazaki3]

Since you like Latin, let's use some more Latin. Cui Bono?

Who benefits if we lower the proposal fee? I would say it's the same people who we've been funding on and off for years who refuse to stop pestering the DAO for funds. These people don't have the ability to help us. They've become like courtiers -- persons who seeks favor by flattery, charm, etc.

If new people and new ideas have not the ability to help Dash, who can help it?

Dash fall from the 6th place to the 69th, due to the lack of ideas and due to the lack of a new active and competitive Dash generation.

 

[Geert]

Dash is boring. We are executing an ancient, six year old plan that needs to be changed to generate excitement. We can't change because there is a leadership vacuum at the moment. So the coders keep coding and the marketers keep marketing a product that is no longer exciting or relevant.

 

[vazaki3]

Dash is boring. We are executing an ancient, six year old plan that needs to be changed to generate excitement. We can't change because there is a leadership vacuum at the moment. So the coders keep coding and the marketers keep marketing a product that is no longer exciting or relevant.

There is no leadership vacuum, imho. There is governance vacuum.
Governance can be applied either by a leader or by the vote of a community.
I prefer the second case.
If you prefer the first case, could you please name the leader?

 

[Geert]

If we don't have good leadership and if we don't start winning in the marketplace there will be nothing to govern.

 

[xkcd]

Which makes me wonder if this has been really thought through, if all possible negative side effects have been fully taken into consideration before launching this decision proposal.

Yes, this has been thought through and is well understood, quit your fearmongering, the worst that can happen is a few more garbage proposals appear in the DAO that you need to swift through, big deal, small price to pay for 150 more DASH available in the DAO for funding proposals and the oppurtunity for more people to pitch their ideas to the network, overall we want to stimulate activity in the DAO not stifle it like you do.

 

[qwizzie]

Yes, this has been thought through and is well understood, quit your fearmongering, the worst that can happen is a few more garbage proposals appear in the DAO that you need to swift through, big deal, small price to pay for 150 more DASH available in the DAO for funding proposals and the oppurtunity for more people to pitch their ideas to the network, overall we want to stimulate activity in the DAO not stifle it like you do.

So if this has been thought through, then why does the proposal text (still) states the following condition : 'The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased'
when that apparently is incorrect according comments on Dash Central ? Furthermore, why have something so completely incorrect in the proposal text in the first place and why not be more specific about the difficulties with raising the proposal fee (pointed out by UdjinM6) if this decision proposal passes ?

The above does point to things not been thought through, before this decision proposal was created. Not to mention other points i mentioned in a previous post leading me to believe that things were not thought through with this proposal.