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!
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
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)
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