Technologov
Active member
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/REDUCE_PROPOSAL_FEES_TO_1_DASH
Please vote 'YES' ! For the Dash Nation !
Please vote 'YES' ! For the Dash Nation !
Pre-Proposal: DASH Proposal fee lowered to 1.0 DASH
- Thread starter Technologov
- Start date
alex-ru
Well-known member
Thanks! At least we will found out the opinion of MN OPs definitely now.
I could be nice to test "1 DASH system" if it's not hard to implement and easy to return back in case of any troubles...
Last edited:
Technologov
Active member
1 DASH will not make *any* trouble. This is 100% safe.
But 0.1 DASH theoretically can create inconvenience by having too much proposals. I think that having too much proposals is better than having too little.
If we have a flood of small proposals, Many of them will not pass the 10% barrier. (only relevant if we vote for 0.1 DASH fee)
I think that 0.1 DASH is even better idea. We have 10% barrier in place, so it will be good.
But 1.0 DASH is a good start, at least for now.
But 0.1 DASH theoretically can create inconvenience by having too much proposals. I think that having too much proposals is better than having too little.
If we have a flood of small proposals, Many of them will not pass the 10% barrier. (only relevant if we vote for 0.1 DASH fee)
I think that 0.1 DASH is even better idea. We have 10% barrier in place, so it will be good.
But 1.0 DASH is a good start, at least for now.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Agreed that we should optimize, but he also said that any such optimization should be grounded on the basis of academic research and data.
The proposal fee isn't as huge of an issue as the block reward, but I still think that we need to be deliberate about it. As much as there has been a good back and forth on the issue among community members here on the forum, slack, and dashcentral, I would like to see a more formal analysis of this issue before I would consider being in favor of a change.
alex-ru
Well-known member
Any system consists of interrelated components. If you increase the size of one (budget), but the other (management level, protection, ...) stay at the same level - there may be distortions and the emergence of unforeseen problems.
But if we can try and get a quick rollback (only developers from DASH team can estimate it properly) - “1 DASH” could be a good idea.
Last edited:
alex-ru
Well-known member
IMO, at the current stage such a System would be ideal:
1. There are let's say 7 independent (ie not necessarily members of the Dash team) "project managers" - reputation, experience, all stuff.
2. Each of managers forms his package of small projects those approved by him personally, and for a reasonable salary he takes on controls over their execution at the proper level, with subsequent payment to project workers.
3. Owners of small projects - may apply to any of such managers for inclusion in their "package" (if one manager has refused - go to another manager and so on until inclusion. Even creation of "new project manager" is possible).
4. If the network sees that individual project managers are ineffective (projects in their "packege" are bad or the results for the majority of his projects suck) - MN OPs stop funding such ineffective manager - they stop voting for him and he leaves the stage.
5. Everybody can become a new Project manager - Networks will trust to professional in different areas - "Marketing guru" will select best small promo-projects, "Programming guru" will select and manage new amateur programmers and so on...
Something like this...
@kot If I am not wrong, Dash Team was going to establish something like this. But... I can see no problem if independent people (not from Dash Team) will force development and achievements in this area...
1. There are let's say 7 independent (ie not necessarily members of the Dash team) "project managers" - reputation, experience, all stuff.
2. Each of managers forms his package of small projects those approved by him personally, and for a reasonable salary he takes on controls over their execution at the proper level, with subsequent payment to project workers.
3. Owners of small projects - may apply to any of such managers for inclusion in their "package" (if one manager has refused - go to another manager and so on until inclusion. Even creation of "new project manager" is possible).
4. If the network sees that individual project managers are ineffective (projects in their "packege" are bad or the results for the majority of his projects suck) - MN OPs stop funding such ineffective manager - they stop voting for him and he leaves the stage.
5. Everybody can become a new Project manager - Networks will trust to professional in different areas - "Marketing guru" will select best small promo-projects, "Programming guru" will select and manage new amateur programmers and so on...
Something like this...
@kot If I am not wrong, Dash Team was going to establish something like this. But... I can see no problem if independent people (not from Dash Team) will force development and achievements in this area...
Last edited:
Leonidas
Active member
Good points are made on each side :
My question will not be why don’t you to drop the price but what are you so afraid of doing so (given that pertinent argument are made on both side) ?
What are the risks of getting flooded during one month ?
We have that marvelous tools that allows us to vote proposals and then unvote them or change our mind !
Why don’t we vote yes to show that it is better to vote 1 dash, get flooded, acknowledge our mistake, get some experience than keeping a conservative state of mind ?
I believe from observation and experience that success in the long term is based on a adaptation capacity. That means try and error. So let's do it !
Now, if such a rollback is not that easy to do technically, that’s another point, and core team should step forward on that point.
- High fees prevent worthy project to come to light
- Small fees will flood the network with bad proposals wasting the valuable network time
My question will not be why don’t you to drop the price but what are you so afraid of doing so (given that pertinent argument are made on both side) ?
What are the risks of getting flooded during one month ?
We have that marvelous tools that allows us to vote proposals and then unvote them or change our mind !
Why don’t we vote yes to show that it is better to vote 1 dash, get flooded, acknowledge our mistake, get some experience than keeping a conservative state of mind ?
I believe from observation and experience that success in the long term is based on a adaptation capacity. That means try and error. So let's do it !
Now, if such a rollback is not that easy to do technically, that’s another point, and core team should step forward on that point.
Note, the No camp hasn't submitted a proposal to keep proposals at 5 dash.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Good points are made on each side :
I will try to propose an other argument in favor of dropping the fee to 1 dash as arguments from both side are valuable.
- High fees prevent worthy project to come to light
- Small fees will flood the network with bad proposals wasting the valuable network time
My question will not be why don’t you to drop the price but what are you so afraid of doing so (given that pertinent argument are made on both side) ?
What are the risks of getting flooded during one month ?
We have that marvelous tools that allows us to vote proposals and then unvote them or change our mind !
Why don’t we vote yes to show that it is better to vote 1 dash, get flooded, acknowledge our mistake, get some experience than keeping a conservative state of mind ?
I believe from observation and experience that success in the long term is based on a adaptation capacity. That means try and error. So let's do it !
Now, if such a rollback is not that easy to do technically, that’s another point, and core team should step forward on that point.
@UdjinM6 @flare @AndyDark
Sorry if you've already answered this, but would one of you be willing to explain (or point to where it has been explained) what it would involve in order to change the fee and have a rollback plan? How much dev resources would it take, and are there any particular risks or other drawbacks we should be aware of, that haven't been discussed?
This would affect my vote
Thanks
bhkien
Well-known member
10 Dash for this? Definitely NO
Vedran Yoweri
Active member
No.
Anybody considering this a good idea: you're backing a proposal to force core to do a hard fork.
The resulting flood of bs proposals will do damage.
f*ck the concern troll's.
Anybody considering this a good idea: you're backing a proposal to force core to do a hard fork.
The resulting flood of bs proposals will do damage.
f*ck the concern troll's.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/reduction-of-proposal-fee-to-0-1-dash-proposal.14131/#post-120984
"Rollback plan" - vote again to change to smth else.
Dev resources - not much: changing one single constant, executing major upgrade (preferably, I still think it's too dangerous to change it between budget cycles with no protobump).
Regarding the proposal - I guess 1 DASH fee would work too, at least we can give it a try. However, as I mentioned in that post, I would be more interested in self-adjusting fee but that's a whole new topic (and yet another proposal
) I guess.
I guess 10 DASH for this one is because he wants to cover expenses for this and previous proposal ("lower to 0.1")
Agree and +1 for 'self-adjusting fee'
Don't base your decision based on number of Dash... This is his 2nd proposal regarding this, so he'll just be breaking even if it passes. Kind of ironic this is costing him $750+ just to adjust the proposal costs... ridiculously high in my mind. Will only cost you about $75 to reverse this if it turns out to be a problem!
Technologov
Active member
I have already lost 10 DASH ($750), just so that newcomers and less wealthy than I, won't need to put up big money to submit a new proposal. That 10 DASH will let me to break even, and recoup my losses, but I gain zero money here. This is a governance proposal, not a budget proposal.
----
Self adjusting fee may be even better, but it takes some brain to figure it out.
My general idea :
The ideal amount of proposals is something that Masternode operators can read and vote on. If we will have too many proposals with under 10% vote (under 400 Masternodes vote), it means that the fee is too cheap, needs to be slightly increased. On the other hand, If we have too much budget, unallocated and waiting, like now, it means that our proposal fee is too expensive. Clearly 5 DASH is way too expensive.
We need to have several competing proposals for every DASH coin we have available in the budget.
----
Self adjusting fee may be even better, but it takes some brain to figure it out.
My general idea :
The ideal amount of proposals is something that Masternode operators can read and vote on. If we will have too many proposals with under 10% vote (under 400 Masternodes vote), it means that the fee is too cheap, needs to be slightly increased. On the other hand, If we have too much budget, unallocated and waiting, like now, it means that our proposal fee is too expensive. Clearly 5 DASH is way too expensive.
We need to have several competing proposals for every DASH coin we have available in the budget.
Last edited:
Regarding the proposal - I guess 1 DASH fee would work too, at least we can give it a try. However, as I mentioned in that post, I would be more interested in self-adjusting fee but that's a whole new topic (and yet another proposal
Perhaps, for example, the base level could be 1 dash but increases by 1 dash for every 100 proposals submitted.
c3works
Member
I'm not in favor of this. It seems like a very arbitrary network change that only sets up the need for more arbitrary network changes later as Dash price adjusts.
I've still not heard an answer to the very valid point that we already have a variety of TOTALLY FREE channels for people to float their ideas around the community. Why is it necessary to start 'moving the dials' all around and hope it all goes well? Near as I can tell, this is not founded on any real data that suggests we have any problem or that we're missing anything not currently available through existing means.
I've still not heard an answer to the very valid point that we already have a variety of TOTALLY FREE channels for people to float their ideas around the community. Why is it necessary to start 'moving the dials' all around and hope it all goes well? Near as I can tell, this is not founded on any real data that suggests we have any problem or that we're missing anything not currently available through existing means.
Last edited:
Technologov
Active member
>this is not founded on any real data that suggests wehave any problem
LOL? Of course we have a huge problem. We have tons of unallocated budget and zero proposals. We need to have lots of proposals for every DASH coin we have.
LOL? Of course we have a huge problem. We have tons of unallocated budget and zero proposals. We need to have lots of proposals for every DASH coin we have.