Pre-Proposal for Time Based Proposal Fee Rebates

Would you accept this proposal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • No

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • Total voters
    5
GrandMasterDash

GrandMasterDash

Well-known member
Masternode Owner/Operator
If at first you don't succeed, give up...

Initial Ramble

As many of you know, there has been much discussion regarding the current 5 dash proposal fee. In fact, at this time of writing, there is an active proposal to reduce the proposal fee to 1 dash (approximately US$75). This debate has clearly divided opinion.

The original 5 dash proposal fee was introduced as a mechanism to reduce spam. To date, this has worked relatively successfully. However, the current US dollar price of dash is leading some people to question if the high fee is stifling progress.

Clearly, none of us can be sure what impact a change in proposal fee will bring. However, if the 1 dash proposal passes, I am willing to at least give it a try If it becomes clear the 1 dash proposal is not working, I would consider making the following proposal ASAP.

Solution - Proposals That Pay

The proposal fee is fixed to 4 dash and held at a time locked address (end of budget). When the Superblock arrives, a rebate is issued to successful proposals on a sliding scale (preference given to early submissions):

Day 01, Proposal Rebate = 0.1 dash x 30 ---> 3 dash rebate (maximum)
Day 02, Proposal Rebate = 0.1 dash x 29
Day 03, Proposal Rebate = 0.1 dash x 28
Day 04, Proposal Rebate = 0.1 dash x 27
Day 05, Proposal Rebate = 0.1 dash x 26
..and so on..
Day 30, Proposal Rebate = 0.1 dash x 1 ---> 0.1 dash rebate (minimum)

Crucially, all failed submissions receive zero rebates and the total of all failed proposal fees is shared equally among all successful proposals, regardless of their value.

This rebate feature therefore encourages early submissions, giving MNOs more time to digest them. Secondly, it's theoretically possible that projects are over funded (bonus), paid for by failed proposals.
 
Last edited:
I will vote yes if all your inital numbers are expressed as variables (in order to be able to be voted in the future)

The proposal fee is fixed to X dash and held at a time locked address (end of budget). When the Superblock arrives, a rebate is issued to successful proposals on a sliding scale (preference given to early submissions):
Day 01, Proposal Rebate = Y dash x Day_end_of_budget
Day next, Proposal Rebate = Y dash x Day_end_of_budget -step
Day next, Proposal Rebate = Y dash x Day_end_of_budget -2*step
..and so on..
Day_end_of_budget, Proposal Rebate = Y dash x 1
Crucially, all failed submissions receive Z rebates and the total of all failed proposal fees is shared equally among all successful proposals, regardless of their value.
Click to expand...
Default values X=4, Y=0.1, Day_end_of_budget=30, Z =0, step=1

and additionaly if you add something like this:
A "spam" type of rating should appear when the masternodes are voting proposals. The masternodes should be able to vote "yes/no/abstain/spam"
The masternodes should be able to filter the spam proposals from their view.
They should also be allowed to assign the task of voting the spam to some moderators of their own choice and trust, and dont bother voting themselves.
The community may also hire some official moderators to do this job, tagging some proposals as spam and recommend the new masternodes operators (who have no friends in the community thus they trust no one to judge the spam on their behalf) to filter the spam according the official spam votes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What are you trying to achieve here? Because it doesn't seem that the solution matches the problem. The "problem" as I understand it is that it is too risky to pay 5 Dash because there is a chance the proposal might fail for various reasons. Your solution doesn't address this. We are back to your last attempt, with an insignificant twist (which is difficult to implement and adds unnecessary complexity to proposals).
 
lynx said:
What are you trying to achieve here? Because it doesn't seem that the solution matches the problem. The "problem" as I understand it is that it is too risky to pay 5 Dash because there is a chance the proposal might fail for various reasons. Your solution doesn't address this. We are back to your last attempt, with an insignificant twist (which is difficult to implement and adds unnecessary complexity to proposals).
Click to expand...

Invariably there will be failed proposals, whether they are spam or if pre-proposals are poorly engaged. This solution incentivizes successful proposals i.e. they could actually make money provided MNOs actually like what they see. Also, as stated earlier, it would encourage early submissions, which many MNOs might actually appreciate.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
Invariably there will be failed proposals, whether they are spam or if pre-proposals are poorly engaged. This solution incentivizes successful proposals i.e. they could actually make money provided MNOs actually like what they see. Also, as stated earlier, it would encourage early submissions, which many MNOs might actually appreciate.
Click to expand...
You want to turn proposals into gambling, which is rather uncanny. It is not the lack of a random chance to win a couple of bucks that is stopping people from submitting proposals.

I also don't think incentivising proposals to be made a full month before the deadline is worth the coding time.
 
lynx said:
I also don't think incentivising proposals to be made a full month before the deadline is worth the coding time.
Click to expand...
You should not count in coding time. You should count in coding price.
A lot of open source developers are coding cheap, or even for free.
If you find a developer excited with your idea, he may implement it half the price or free.
 
lynx said:
You want to turn proposals into gambling, which is rather uncanny. It is not the lack of a random chance to win a couple of bucks that is stopping people from submitting proposals.

I also don't think incentivising proposals to be made a full month before the deadline is worth the coding time.
Click to expand...

It's not gambling. Good proposals pass, bad proposals fail, this solution doesn't change that at all. Submissions have a fixed price and spamming doesn't negatively impact good proposals, that too hasn't changed. So when you introduce the term "gambling", I'm inclined to mark that comment as "trolling".

You don't see any advantage in early submissions, nor any disadvantage when a major proposal is introduced late in the cycle. How about that debit card proposal.. when was it meant to be delivered? - oh yeah I know, mid-April.

Someone said this was turning into the "Great Bitcoin Scaling Debate" and I'm starting to think they might be right; one half recognises a problem (only 494 dash allocated this month), while others bury their head in the sand and claim no problem. Well I just hope the 1 Dash Proposal (1DP) passes and holds so that we can once and for all put this to bed. These are the reasons why decred and pivx exist, because when everyone has a say, there isn't a single segment to point to and blame for their incompetence to deal with something.
 
You just made 3 consecutive pre-proposals because another proposal doesn't seem to go the way you wanted. I gave you my honest feedback, if you don't value it, fine, I won't waste my time. I'll be back if and when it's a real proposal for the sake of discussing with the other MNOs.

GrandMasterDash said:
one half recognises a problem (only 494 dash allocated this month), while others bury their head in the sand and claim no problem
Click to expand...
Did you ever consider that some might see a problem but disagree with your solution?
 
lynx said:
You just made 3 consecutive pre-proposals because another proposal doesn't seem to go the way you wanted. I gave you my honest feedback, if you don't value it, fine, I won't waste my time. I'll be back if and when it's a real proposal for the sake of discussing with the other MNOs.

Did you ever consider that some might see a problem but disagree with your solution?
Click to expand...

Those 3 consecutive pre-proposals are 3 more than yours. Clearly I accept there were problems with those, and so I'm here in the hope that, at the very least, if it's not me with a solution, that it might spark ideas, someone else tweaks it a little and helps to find a solution / compromise. In contrast, from you, all I saw was "do nothing" and introducing the word "gambling" when it's nothing of the sort.

But yeah, if you want to talk about gambling, let's talk about PoW and how solutions are randomly searched until a correct one is found.. wait, let me guess, you wouldn't dare call mining a lottery / "gambling".
 
I like the idea of fee rebates, but time based might be going overboard, and I disagree with "failed proposals get 0 rebate"

I think *some* failed proposals (budgets that do not get funded) should be refunded, and *all* successful proposals should be refunded.

For example, possibly refund between 0-5 dash depending on how far between 0% and 10% the vote is. Anything below 0% gets no refund. Or simpler, just refund all 5 dash to anything that exceeds a certain vote threshold which is lower than the threshold required to pass.

The idea is that we need to continue the disincentive for bad/spam proposals, but lessen the disincentive to propose things which are likely to have a chance.
 
TroyDASH said:
I like the idea of fee rebates, but time based might be going overboard, and I disagree with "failed proposals get 0 rebate"

I think *some* failed proposals (budgets that do not get funded) should be refunded, and *all* successful proposals should be refunded.

For example, possibly refund between 0-5 dash depending on how far between 0% and 10% the vote is. Anything below 0% gets no refund. Or simpler, just refund all 5 dash to anything that exceeds a certain vote threshold which is lower than the threshold required to pass.

The idea is that we need to continue the disincentive for bad/spam proposals, but lessen the disincentive to propose things which are likely to have a chance.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the fixed price is there to discourage spam before it gets published. But you know, I'm thinking maybe people are worrying too much about spam proposals because so far we've seen very few, even when dash was 10x smaller. Maybe we should just sign a monthly vote and let a spork set the average price.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
Yes, but the fixed price is there to discourage spam before it gets published. But you know, I'm thinking maybe people are worrying too much about spam proposals because so far we've seen very few, even when dash was 10x smaller. Maybe we should just sign a monthly vote and let a spork set the average price.
Click to expand...

It would still discourage spam before getting published. Bad proposals which fail miserably would still get no refund.

I think if you manage to get a net positive vote from the masternodes, the system shouldn't punish you to the same extent that it does when the proposal actually has negative support.
 
TroyDASH said:
It would still discourage spam before getting published. Bad proposals which fail miserably would still get no refund.

I think if you manage to get a net positive vote from the masternodes, the system shouldn't punish you to the same extent that it does when the proposal actually has negative support.
Click to expand...

How about:
Net positive YES - NO =full refund
Net positive YES + Abstain - NO = half refund.
 
Just a reminder - the original problem was that a lot of people can't afford to put up the 5 (or 4) Dash needed. They are just too poor.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
An open source forked poll should create it's own thread.

Wait, did you just invent the forked poll?? :p
Click to expand...

Forked poll? It is not a forked poll, your initial question remains the same. You may call it a forked poll option. I want my fork proposal to be put near your initial proposal as a poll option, for the people to be able to compare it with yours and vote accordingly.

However you call this system, it is acctualy a similar method to this alternative budget system.

Note that currently I am not allowed to add a new poll option in your poll here, but you are (as the creator of the poll). So the current system of this forum may be called a "forked poll option upon permission".
 
Last edited:
demo said:
Forked poll? It is not a forked poll, your initial question remains the same. You may call it a forked poll option. I want my fork proposal to be put near your initial proposal as a poll option, for the people to be able to compare it with yours and vote accordingly.

However you call this system, it is acctualy a similar method to this alternative budget system.

Note that currently I am not allowed to add a new poll option in your poll here, but you are (as the creator of the poll). So the current system of this forum may be called a "forked poll option upon permission".
Click to expand...

Not a forked poll but the poll is forked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top