masternube
Member
Then I don't think you understand the purpose of the fee.
A proposal now costs over $3,000
- Thread starter thesavoyard
- Start date
Barrett Davis
Member
If you look at the pre-proposal discussion.. everyone is talking about marketing proposals. Every single one on the main page is a marketing proposal. This 5 dash fee needs to change for more developers to build on top of this platform.
I could list 5 platforms similar to dash, who are offering incentives to get devs to build on the platform. So silly to have developers pay money to pitch their idea. Gonna be a lot more marketing proposals to vote on in the future if this stays the same.
I could list 5 platforms similar to dash, who are offering incentives to get devs to build on the platform. So silly to have developers pay money to pitch their idea. Gonna be a lot more marketing proposals to vote on in the future if this stays the same.
Ashley Rikhotso
Member
If you wouldn't mind can you name the 5 similar platforms to Dash that offer incentive to developers....
Barrett Davis
Member
Did this die out?
The outcome was, "if it works, don't touch it". Adaptive Proposal Fees were rejected.
Arthyron
Active member
@Barrett Davis -- Nothing ever really "dies out" in Dash, there are cyclical discussions of every one of these issues, and that's a good and important thing because we always need to ensure that our present course is the best possible one for Dash. I didn't notice this thread when it was active last time, but suffice it to say, I think there are definitely some changes we could make to the voting/proposal process that would encourage more high-value (to the network, not necessarily asking price) proposals while still discouraging spam/troll/scam proposals.
One possible solution I've heard mentioned would be to refund the proposal fees of proposals that got a net positive vote but not enough to pass the 10% threshold. This would undoubtedly change the way MNOs vote, but by the same token would encourage and incentivize proposals that did not pass but still caught enough attention to get a positive vote to re-evaluate, sweeten the pot, pare down the excess, and resubmit. This would, of course, still depend on the whim of the MNOs that actually show up and vote, but I think would do a lot for the ecosystem.
One possible solution I've heard mentioned would be to refund the proposal fees of proposals that got a net positive vote but not enough to pass the 10% threshold. This would undoubtedly change the way MNOs vote, but by the same token would encourage and incentivize proposals that did not pass but still caught enough attention to get a positive vote to re-evaluate, sweeten the pot, pare down the excess, and resubmit. This would, of course, still depend on the whim of the MNOs that actually show up and vote, but I think would do a lot for the ecosystem.
indospace.io
New member
The fee can remain or even increase as one mentioned on here, very good sound logic,
But, God forbid, if their proposal fails, give it all back, it's the right thing to do.
What's wonderful is that person most likely went from fiat -> Bitcoin, Ethereum,Litecoin -> DASH.
Give them their DASH back and they can even convert back to fiat, but that's a lot of steps and waiting time for banks to receive the fiat payment. Betting the overall majority say screw that and hold on to their righteously refunded DASH as a long term investment or cryptocurrency purchase. Now they are cursing your name and wishing ill will upon you or the whole DASH project late into the night, all for not refunding their funding attempt on a legitimate idea which supports DASH.
Give it all back, sound business practices, you'll come out a winner in this slow and steady race.
Last edited:
indospace.io
New member
Completely agree with keeping a fee, so in congruence there.
But what about just losing $3,000? I believe that is a considerable chunk of change to anyone.
Personally, I feel that a more reasonable fee of lets say $500 is not just merely 6x cheaper than $3,000, but to the magnitude of a 100x cheaper mentally. LOL, I think it's because my mind is thinking of investing that $3,000 in DASH and cashing out gains in the next 5 years...
Again, that's just me but I think most would concur to the general thought of lowering the fee to an amount that still effectively keeps rift raft at bay.
George Donnelly
Active member
One concern is that as the fiat price rises, those contractors who have already had successful proposals will have a market advantage over newcomers, because the veteran contractors will likely have retained enough Dash from their superblock payments to fund more proposals.
This could be good for veteran contractors, but bad for the network if new, quality contractors are facing too high of a barrier to entry.
Maybe there just needs to be more scaffolding for new contractors, like what DFN does for meetups, so they have both sources of small monetary support as well as mentoring. This scaffolding could serve the purpose of moving new contractors from zero to where they have or can access their first 5 Dash and where their proposals and projects are in good enough shape that they are likely to be treasury-funded on their first try.
Maybe veteran contractors need to provide this scaffolding. For example, altho my efforts are focused on the city of Medellín, I am looking for new leaders in cities and towns within a 300 km radius to develop and support.