Pre-Proposal: DASH Proposal fee lowered to 1.0 DASH

Would you like to lower the DASH proposal fee to 1.0 DASH ?

  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
Technologov

Technologov

Active member
Dear Dash Nation !

Sudden spike of Dash-to-U.S.Dollar prices, put many new proposals out of reach for small projects.
With regard to the recent maximum USD price of Dash at $120, We think the proposal fee should be reduced to 0.1 Dash.
Without this change, We feel that opportunities will be missed.
This is because a high proposal cost will discourage submitting of anything but "guaranteed" proposals.

The 5 Dash fee was introduced primarily to prevent spam. But it became a wall, where new proposals cannot even be proposed.
====
It is my second attempt to lower prices of DASH proposals to 1.0 DASH, after my previous attempt to lower the price to 0.1 DASH was squarely rejected by the majority of Masternodes. (me and my friends voted for it)

Medium-sized projects of $1000-to-$5000 dollars really don't need to pay $500 dollar fee on our proposals.
This proposal will let Medium-sized proposals to get decentralized funding.

Smaller projects are priced out of the network, even with 1.0 DASH fee. (especially what-if future price spike to $1000/DASH ?)
Smaller projects (under $500 worth) will be handled in another way. Perhaps some kind of non-profit center. A bunch of centralized Dash administrators, our community members will govern it. Do you have an idea of how we should govern this thing ?
Alternative path is to build a multi-layer decentralized budget system, where several people can vote on small proposals.

All the Dash meeting in Australia/ U.S/ E.U/ Ukraine, you-name-it. Plus academic works.
Dash MNs don't want to micro-manage, and rejected my offer of reducing fee to 0.1 DASH.
(this would have put Masternode owners to become the baby-sitters of DASH. I don't mind becoming one, and take on more responsibility, but others don't want it.)

-Technologov
 
Last edited:
So what should we do about the small proposals ? Different opinions:
J
stevecash 5:22 AM
Masternodes being lazy should be addressed seperatly. Ends / means....

joezippy 5:40 AM
I don't think this is lazy... For me it's about due diligence... I would rather know I'm voting on something of value than herd-voting for 1000... 100USD proposals...
Click to expand...

Probably we should explore multi-layer budget approach...
 
I dont like centralization so having a third party ruling on this small budget proposals seems like a bureacratic approach. Is not descentralized and is also not anonimous.
 
I think this one will go through. There's always going to be difference of opinion on this but I think most of us here also realise that this is possibly the best short term compromise. Submit it please.
 
I think it's a good ideas since sometimes really good ideas can come from humble people who don't have a lot of cash.
I'm speaking with Anja right now who has some great ideas that we're working on........she's interested in possibly submitting a proposal, and I think this is a great idea. I wonder though, if 2 Dash might be optimal.......
 
Sorry you have to resubmit. I will vote "Yes". You may wish to ask for 10 for refunding both proposals.
 
I would oppose any reduction to the proposal fee, for the same reasons expressed previously.
Suppose that Dash only grows to the market cap of Ethereum. Still way below our potential. That would put our monthly budget at roughly $4,000,000. That would be enough to fund 200 "small" proposals at an average of $20,000 each. The voting for masternodes simply cannot scale to the point where masternode operators can make informed decisions evaluating over 6 proposals per day, and that's only the ones that pass. The average proposal size must increase proportionally with the market cap of the network. While it might work for us in the beginning, a global decentralized network can't micromanage small or local projects when we scale up. There needs to be a movement towards a more tiered structure. Funding larger projects that can provide funding for their own more localized sub-projects (or other projects from people who can't raise enough for the fee) gives us the benefit of both worlds, with ultimate decentralized control of the purse strings, but with smaller decisions being delegated to those most well equipped to make them. What happens when we reach bitcoin's market cap -- 500 proposals per month at an average of $40,000 each (16 proposals per day?), and beyond that? I have no objection to having thousands of projects happening concurrently for Dash -- but they can't all be funded directly from the top global masternode layer.
 
Last edited:
TroyDASH said:
I would oppose any reduction to the proposal fee, for the same reasons expressed previously.
Suppose that Dash only grows to the market cap of Ethereum. Still way below our potential. That would put our monthly budget at roughly $4,000,000. That would be enough to fund 200 "small" proposals at an average of $20,000 each. The voting for masternodes simply cannot scale to the point where masternode operators can make informed decisions evaluating over 6 proposals per day, and that's only the ones that pass. The average proposal size must increase proportionally with the market cap of the network. While it might work for us in the beginning, a global decentralized network can't micromanage small or local projects when we scale up. There needs to be a movement towards a more tiered structure. Funding larger projects that can provide funding for their own more localized sub-projects (or other projects from people who can't raise enough for the fee) gives us the benefit of both worlds, with ultimate decentralized control of the purse strings, but with smaller decisions being delegated to those most well equipped to make them. What happens when we reach bitcoin's market cap -- 500 proposals per month at an average of $40,000 each (16 proposals per day?), and beyond that? I have no objection to having thousands of projects happening concurrently for Dash -- but they can't all be funded directly from the top global masternode layer.
Click to expand...

No one here is saying it's perfect. It's a short term fix and a workable compromise being that everyone has their own take on it. When dash gets as big as you say, we can re-evaluate and maybe / maybe not re-consider things.
 
I used to support the idea of fee lowered to 1.0 DASH, but now I've changed my point of view (I think it should stay 5 DASH) after studying the post and video of Rion
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-community-stipends.13989/

MN OPs just don't have so much time to analysing, checking and controlling results of >100 Proposals each month. You have to spend several day to do it with proper quality and just small percent of NM OPs are ready to spend so much time for this task. So... yes - I think that we need a second layer - several (competition will balance, optimise and specialise such managers) "proposals-project managers" who will select the most effective small proposals (by his opinion), substantiate, submit "collective proposal" and ensure their implementation.
 
alex-ru said:
I used to support the idea of fee lowered to 1.0 DASH, but now I've changed my point of view (I think it should stay 5 DASH) after studying the post and video of Rion
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-community-stipends.13989/

MN OPs just don't have so much time to analysing, checking and controlling results of >100 Proposals each month. You have to spend several day to do it with proper quality and just small percent of NM OPs are ready to spend so much time for this task. So... yes - I think that we need a second layer - several (competition will balance, optimise and specialise such managers) "proposals-project managers" who will select the most effective small proposals (by his opinion), substantiate, submit "collective proposal" and ensure their implementation.
Click to expand...

The alternative solution that the budget finilization may not happen every one month in case the proposals are a lot, did not passed through your mind? The alternative that the 10% of the budget allocation should not be hardcoded and you may have the power to change it, did not passed through your mind? The possibility that there may be alternative selection processes for choosing the proposals than the current one (which was imposed to you), did not passed through your mind?

You have the mind of a slave, and whatever you think or propose is most of the times towards a centralized solution, towards the concentration of the governing power to a few persons. Many people are like you, they are born to be slaves and they like to be governed by others.

The twisted logic of the slave: "If there is a lot of work to be done, a lot of decisions to be made, a lot of people are unable to accomplish this task. The task should be assigned to a few people, the few people will take all the decisions, and then everything will be fine."

How rational the above way of thinking seems to you? If you believe that the slave's way of thinking is rational, the possibilities are that you are also like @alex-ru, a person ready to be ruled rather than ready to govern.
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterDash said:
No one here is saying it's perfect. It's a short term fix and a workable compromise being that everyone has their own take on it. When dash gets as big as you say, we can re-evaluate and maybe / maybe not re-consider things.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound too unreasonable, but if we're going to put in something this major (i think it would be a hardfork?), I would rather that a solution be geared for a long term implementation, not a short term fix. If we need the ability to have the network have the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, and change the fee in a less disruptive way (Masternodes govern it somehow, or other dynamic fee?), then let's take our time and build that out first. I don't think we are at a point where we need to get a temp fix in urgently.
 
TroyDASH said:
It doesn't sound too unreasonable, but if we're going to put in something this major (i think it would be a hardfork?), I would rather that a solution be geared for a long term implementation, not a short term fix. If we need the ability to have the network have the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, and change the fee in a less disruptive way (Masternodes govern it somehow, or other dynamic fee?), then let's take our time and build that out first. I don't think we are at a point where we need to get a temp fix in urgently.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree a longer term solution would be better but while things are so undecided, I think a short term solution with short term advantages is the better choice.

Btw, on a related note, at the open house Ryan briefly touched on the magic numbers 45-45-10. I think he was basically saying that the numbers and processes should be analysed and optimised. With that in mind, this drop to 1 dash might be a good test to prove us right or wrong. In fact, I would suggest that over the next 12 months we should vary the parameters (proposal costs and reward split) with the view that this is for optimisation purposes. It will, no doubt cause some debate, but at the end of the 12 months we could take a final vote to which combination to accept.
 
I think ppl should make proposal that themself can accomplish, otherwise i will put up proposal to make Andreas Antonopolus, Vitalik and Satoshi as lead dev of DASH. surely it will cost lots of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top