Pre-Proposal: Adaptive Proposal Fees

Would you accept this proposal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • No

    Votes: 7 58.3%
  • Total voters
    12
GrandMasterDash said:
However, I concede a few fail-safes will need to be put into place. For example, if there's less than 1% of MN voting on the proposal fee then the price automatically reverts to 5 dash (in homage to the original value).
Click to expand...

Corrrect...the minimum participation percentage is very important.
This is where the triple vote <number, selection_process, minimum_participation_percentage> stands.

Again your 1% minimum participation is a hardcoded number.
So it should be voted as a number in a triple vote system, and decided by the same selection process that is used in order to select the number (or maybe by another selection process, then comes the quadraple vote)
 
Last edited:
GDASHMoney said:
What about pegging the fee to something non fiat, like, say the current spot price of an ounce of .999 pure Silver?
Click to expand...
I brought that up earlier... it would work, but its complicated because it involves connecting to various 3rd party exchanges. It's really not needed if we just take a vote and use the median. K.I.S.S.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
However, I concede a few fail-safes will need to be put into place. For example, if there's less than 1% of MN voting on the proposal fee then the price automatically reverts to 5 dash (in homage to the original value).
Click to expand...
Why not convert back to the previous month's price? Seems to make much more sense. 5 Dash can be any value and it could render governance useless for a session.
 
GDASHMoney said:
What about pegging the fee to something non fiat, like, say the current spot price of an ounce of .999 pure Silver?
Click to expand...

Tbh, I'm not against pegging to grams of gold or silver, but I feel that such price discovery would be better served in a different proposal. It's far more involved and contentious proposal.
 
What if one DASH was our benchmark? Shouldn't one single DASH be the standard we set for the foundational basis of value in this community? Just a thought..
 
Kevin Stalker said:
Every month the masternodes vote to for either "up", "same", or "down". The majority wins. If "up" wins the price goes up by 10%, if "down" wins the price goes down by 10%, otherwise it stays the same.
Click to expand...

Note that +10% followed by -10% won't get us to the original price ;)
 
Kevin Stalker said:
How about this....

Every month the masternodes vote to for either "up", "same", or "down". The majority wins. If "up" wins the price goes up by 10%, if "down" wins the price goes down by 10%, otherwise it stays the same.

That way we can adapt to situations. If there are too many proposals the price will gradually rise, etc. I cant see how it can be hacked or broken.

Brilliant.
Click to expand...

I've given this some thought but have decided against it, here's why; Voting with precise numbers, over time, would give us some valuable data to work with. This is exactly what we need. We'd have historic data from both sides of the coin; on the one hand we'd have the usual proposal data, but we'd also have a history of how proposal fees were voted. This could give us some valuable insight into what works or doesn't work. Voting up and down gradually moves an individual MNO to his preferred fee, but it's not precise enough.
 
Kevin Stalker said:
How about this....

Every month the masternodes vote to for either "up", "same", or "down". The majority wins. If "up" wins the price goes up by 10%, if "down" wins the price goes down by 10%, otherwise it stays the same.

That way we can adapt to situations. If there are too many proposals the price will gradually rise, etc. I cant see how it can be hacked or broken.

Brilliant.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's fine. I just want to point out that the iteration of this process is that we will pick a fee that will gravitate towards the median, but would always be lagging (wouldn't adapt as fast as we would like), while direct voting will give us the median immediately, and thus should be preferred.
 
It seems to me that you're all trying to engineer a solution to a problem that doesn't exist... ;)

We need to focus on encouraging more Alt36 type proposals. We're shooting for parity with Bitcoin here, we aren't going to get anywhere near Bitcoin by funding hundreds of 50 Dash projects (no matter how cool and well intended they are). We need serious proposals, with serious potential and seriously rewarding payoffs if we're even going to move the needle at this level. To achieve $20bn market cap we need to be funding dozens of Alt36 sized proposals. Some will pay off, some won't, but that's the nature of the beast. Think big guys & Gals!! :D

Walter
 
Walter said:
It seems to me that you're all trying to engineer a solution to a problem that doesn't exist... ;)

We need to focus on encouraging more Alt36 type proposals. We're shooting for parity with Bitcoin here, we aren't going to get anywhere near Bitcoin by funding hundreds of 50 Dash projects (no matter how cool and well intended they are). We need serious proposals, with serious potential and seriously rewarding payoffs if we're even going to move the needle at this level. To achieve $20bn market cap we need to be funding dozens of Alt36 sized proposals. Some will pay off, some won't, but that's the nature of the beast. Think big guys & Gals!! :D

Walter
Click to expand...

To be clear, although I believe a lower fee would be better, I am not hardcore opposed to your point of view. Equally, this proposal does not favor lower or higher fees. You don't need to fear this proposal because you will be able to vote for 5 dash fees or even more if you choose.
 
Technically it's a rather neat approach, it's an engineer's solution to a problem :) and I like good engineering solutions... Where I get off the train is that I don't believe the problem is impacting Dash negatively in any meaningful way at present. I think the current system is working exactly as it should at the moment. That may change in future though, and I'd happily support this kind of thing if I could see an immediate payoff for the network.

Disclosure: I did vote yes for the reduction to 1 dash from 5.

Walter
 
I agree with both of you :)
IMO the issue we faced with lack of proposals last time was the result of the huge price rise, so these who are used to relatively small projects were unpleasantly surprised and these who would be ready to submit smth much more valuable and complex were not ready. Because if your proposal is 100K+ and someone's budget is ~100K only (and always full), you probably won't even bother thinking about submitting your proposal anytime soon. In calm and natural growth this shouldn't be a problem IMO but it would be nice to have smth in place to be able to adjust the system when there are unusual price movements.
 
Walter said:
Technically it's a rather neat approach, it's an engineer's solution to a problem :) and I like good engineering solutions... Where I get off the train is that I don't believe the problem is impacting Dash negatively in any meaningful way at present. I think the current system is working exactly as it should at the moment. That may change in future though, and I'd happily support this kind of thing if I could see an immediate payoff for the network.

Disclosure: I did vote yes for the reduction to 1 dash from 5.

Walter
Click to expand...


It is impacting Dash extremely negatively , because it makes the governance proposals impossible to occur.

Who is afraid of governance? They are. The spies and the stupids. We are watching them.

This is another call for someone to fund my proposal in order to reveal the stupidness (or the extreme conservatism) of the SS (aka spies-stupids)

demo said:
So lets go back before the arrival of @Technologov.

Is anyone interested in creating a multisig address, and do a fundrasing in order to reach the amount of 5 dash and be able to add a proposal in the governance system asking the 5 dash proposal fee to remain the same?

Lets start a list of the people who are interested in this fundrasing. Whenever the list reaches the 5 dash goal, we are going to vote for the person who we trust he creates the multisig address, and vote the minimum (m) number of signatures required to spend the money. Everyone may gives whatever he/she wants, even a single duff is welcome, and he/she may defines whatever terms or conditions he/she desires in order to give the amount. The only expected is to keep his/her promise.

The list follows (it will be updated accordingly):

1. Myself @demo ( XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX ) : I initially offer 20% of my entire fortune in Dash for this puprose ( 20% of my Dash fortune is currently set to 0.1899 dash, since the above Dash address is the only non-empty I possess). Until the creation of the multisig address I keep the right to reduce or increase what I offer. But after the multisig address has been created, I hereby declare, on oath, that I will give the declared amount.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
demo said:
It is impacting Dash extremely negatively , because it makes the governance proposals impossible to occur.

Who is afraid of governance? They are. The spies and the stupids. We are watching them.

This is another call for someone to fund my proposal in order to reveal the stupidness (or the extreme conservatism) of the SS (aka spies-stupids)
Click to expand...


upload_2017-4-25_11-30-8.png


upload_2017-4-25_11-34-0.png

upload_2017-4-25_11-34-47.png

upload_2017-4-25_11-36-12.png


The market disagrees with you ;)

Walter
 
Look, nobody can say what the right number is for the cost of putting in a proposal, there just isn't enough info as to what proposals would be posted if the price were at different levels. But even if there were, the optimum will change over time. An adaptive solution is absolutely the only way.

By the way, my proposal for Dash Funded Budget Holders works this way. Instead of funding every project, we fund a Budget Holder, who invests in lots of projects. We review the budget holder, and vote the monthly budget he/she receives up or down each month. That way we can scale in the long term. However, I expect that's a step too far right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top