Reduction Of Proposal Fee To 0.1 Dash (Proposal)

Acedian

Acedian

Active member
An active proposal is looking to reduce the proposal fee to 0.1 Dash.

Here is the DashCentral link:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Reduce_proposal_fees_to_dot1_DASH

Please read and vote if you are a masternode owner.

I am not the proposer, I would just like to spread the word.

The proposal:

"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.
This was successful when this fee was only about $15.
We see no reason why a smaller fee of about $5 will not successfully discourage spam.

There was a question about pricing Dash proposals in USD;

Sadly this is technically impossible, because the Dash network (our block-chain)
knows nothing about the price of U.S. Dollar, nor about the price of gold.

Therefore 0.1 DASH (Dash = $50) will mean that a single proposal will cost only $5 at this price, and even in a case of sudden spike to a $1000 for Dash, our proposals will still be priced reasonably at $100-a-pop."

Manually vote on this proposal (DashCore - Tools - Debugconsole):
gobject vote-many 96ced329ee3c4678f543dd7eeb6f1646b8c54472b02c3a0e22e7bfb69694ee2a funding yes

(taken from dashcentral.org, submitted by Technologov)
 
If you cant get five friends behind your idea, to lend you a Dash each, then how great of an idea can it be? Good luck.
 
Mini Q&A:


Q: > What is the purpose of the proposal fee?

To avoid spam.

Q: > How do you measure if the fee is too high?

Our budget is not filled with proposals. We have fewer proposals than available budget.

Q: > Is there currently evidence that it is too high?

Many small-academic projects are already priced out of the market.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/introduction-to-my-extraordinary-proposal.13651/

And we have zero spam. Good idea is to decrease fees.
We want competition for budget money -- that is more proposals for ideas and start-ups than available budget. This will give maximum growth for the Dash network.

What if a Dash spikes to a $1000 and new proposal will cost $5000 ? Only big and rich corporations will be able to propose new stuff or new policies or new start-ups on our network.
 
Technologov said:
Mini Q&A:


Q: > What is the purpose of the proposal fee?

To avoid spam.

Q: > How do you measure if the fee is too high?

Our budget is not filled with proposals. We have fewer proposals than available budget.

Q: > Is there currently evidence that it is too high?

Many small-academic projects are already priced out of the market.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/introduction-to-my-extraordinary-proposal.13651/

And we have zero spam. Good idea is to decrease fees.
We want competition for budget money -- that is more proposals for ideas and start-ups than available budget. This will give maximum growth for the Dash network.

What if a Dash spikes to a $1000 and new proposal will cost $5000 ? Only big and rich corporations will be able to propose new stuff or new policies or new start-ups on our network.
Click to expand...
No matter what the usd evaluation of Dash is at any given moment, people with good ideas can still gather support and make proposals. 5 Dash will always be 5 Dash, be it from friends or family or well wishers. Promote your great idea and you wont need to raise the funds - the funds will come to you.
Just remember, only ideas that substantially increase the value of Dash compared to altcoins will really stand a chance. So be serious about it, put your money where your mouth is.
 
Technologov said:
Mini Q&A:


Q: > What is the purpose of the proposal fee?

To avoid spam.

Q: > How do you measure if the fee is too high?

Our budget is not filled with proposals. We have fewer proposals than available budget.

Q: > Is there currently evidence that it is too high?

Many small-academic projects are already priced out of the market.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/introduction-to-my-extraordinary-proposal.13651/

And we have zero spam. Good idea is to decrease fees.
We want competition for budget money -- that is more proposals for ideas and start-ups than available budget. This will give maximum growth for the Dash network.

What if a Dash spikes to a $1000 and new proposal will cost $5000 ? Only big and rich corporations will be able to propose new stuff or new policies or new start-ups on our network.
Click to expand...

We had zero DDOS attacks on the masternode network too...until we had one a few weeks ago. The fee isn't to prevent spam (as in unwanted proposals). The fee is to prevent attacks (as in somebody flooding the network with 10,000 proposals.)

A bad guy wanting to make a profit would short a bunch of DASH on Poloniex, spam the network with 10k proposals at a cost of $50,000 - $60,000 and then close his shorts once the price drops due to the attack.

I'd personally be in favor of reducing the fee to 1 DASH, but not 0.1
 
RichardAO said:
No matter what the usd evaluation of Dash is at any given moment, people with good ideas can still gather support and make proposals. 5 Dash will always be 5 Dash, be it from friends or family or well wishers. Promote your great idea and you wont need to raise the funds - the funds will come to you.
Just remember, only ideas that substantially increase the value of Dash compared to altcoins will really stand a chance. So be serious about it, put your money where your mouth is.
Click to expand...

5 DASH at $1000 a pop means that Academics will not be able to apply for grants. Small start-ups will be priced out of the market.
(just like Coffee buyers are priced out of the Bitcoin network, because transactions fees are sky-high at $1 one-dollar-a-pop. A transaction fee must NEVER EVER exceed even 1 cent. And this is absolute maximum.)
 
Technologov said:
5 DASH at $1000 a pop means that Academics will not be able to apply for grants. Small start-ups will be priced out of the market.
(just like Coffee buyers are priced out of the Bitcoin network, because transactions fees are sky-high at $1 one-dollar-a-pop. A transaction fee must NEVER EVER exceed even 1 cent. And this is absolute maximum.)
Click to expand...

I don't think that anybody is advocating never changing the proposal fee.
 
.1 is too low at this time due to reasons mentioned. 1.5 seems reasonable - $95 at the current rate, or $42-$190 considering a 100% change in margin.
 
".1 is too low at this time due to reasons mentioned. 1.5 seems reasonable: $95 at the current rate, while a 100% change in margin would be from $42-$190."

Let's see how it goes, and if there will be too much spam, we will consider to increase fees slightly.

"RichardAO"
There is *no* way to convince friends to give you hundreds of dollars. No one will. Not in Dash and not in fiat.
 
Acedian said:
An active proposal is looking to reduce the proposal fee to 0.1 Dash.

Here is the DashCentral link:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Reduce_proposal_fees_to_dot1_DASH

Please read and vote if you are a masternode owner.

I am not the proposer, I would just like to spread the word.

The proposal:

"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.
This was successful when this fee was only about $15.
We see no reason why a smaller fee of about $5 will not successfully discourage spam.

There was a question about pricing Dash proposals in USD;

Sadly this is technically impossible, because the Dash network (our block-chain)
knows nothing about the price of U.S. Dollar, nor about the price of gold.

Therefore 0.1 DASH (Dash = $50) will mean that a single proposal will cost only $5 at this price, and even in a case of sudden spike to a $1000 for Dash, our proposals will still be priced reasonably at $100-a-pop."

Manually vote on this proposal (DashCore - Tools - Debugconsole):
gobject vote-many 96ced329ee3c4678f543dd7eeb6f1646b8c54472b02c3a0e22e7bfb69694ee2a funding yes

(taken from dashcentral.org, submitted by Technologov)
Click to expand...

Hi Acedian

I won't comment on the actual fee I think we should have right now. But just to point out, these proposals that just ask a question aren't always going to get results because proposals only work when they pay someone to do something (this is the fundamental incentive modal of the budget system). For example, this proposal should really pay a dev (whoever) to implement the code change and PR it to the dashpay repo.

There is the argument that e.g. the core devs are employed by the Core Team dao which is subcontracting to the network on a rolling monthly basis - therefore a decision like this must be followed. I agree with that to a point, but really budget proposals are supposed to financially incentivize people to take action. This proposal isn't financially incentivizing anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if these type of proposals are often contentious / not followed in Dash's future.

Andy Freer

EDIT: BTW, this requires a hard fork, so it's not something we can just change back and forth easily right now so we should put a lot of thought behind it (i agree 5 is too much right now personally but i would be more conservative with the reduction for security / technical reasons)
 
hard forks are easy when they are done on a weekly basis. See Ethereum. (hint: if there is no political fork, chain will not split)

Let's call it a "protocol upgrade" instead. :)
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons for small fees: Ability for scientists and academics to use Dash Budget system, so we can sponsor their research papers.

I want Academics and scientists to use our system too... There is one scientist, working on Dash, and would like to receive a small grant here:

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/introduction-to-my-extraordinary-proposal.13651/

I think it is very beneficial for us, if scientists and academics could publish scientific-papers about Dash.
With $120 DASH x5 = $600 fee proposals. It will price academic and scientists out of DASH.
 
@AndyDark can't it be once implemented in the code that MNs vote on the actual fee in the monthly rates? If a new % maggioranze voted by the MNs will not be achieved then the old fee remains till the moment when votes go to another %fee. This would only need 1 future hardfork and would live in the code for all future changes of the fee.
Immagine that the price of one coin goes to 500$. It's a big barrier for anyone who has a new ideas to submit his proposal or must be 100% sure it will pass.
0.1 fee with the actuall price might flood the network with the gobject:)
 
splawik21 said:
@AndyDark can't it be once implemented in the code that MNs vote on the actual fee in the monthly rates? If a new % maggioranze voted by the MNs will not be achieved then the old fee remains till the moment when votes go to another %fee. This would only need 1 future hardfork and would live in the code for all future changes of the fee.
Immagine that the price of one coin goes to 500$. It's a big barrier for anyone who has a new ideas to submit his proposal or must be 100% sure it will pass.
0.1 fee with the actuall price might flood the network with the gobject:)
Click to expand...

Hey Splawik :)

It would be possible to do that with Sentinel, yes. But in the Evo revision it can be done more elegantly, so our strategy is to press on with the Evo alpha (within which Sentinel is upgrading to DashDrive essentially) and release everything together.

Andy
 
AndyDark said:
I won't comment on the actual fee I think we should have right now. But just to point out, these proposals that just ask a question aren't always going to get results because proposals only work when they pay someone to do something (this is the fundamental incentive modal of the budget system). For example, this proposal should really pay a dev (whoever) to implement the code change and PR it to the dashpay repo.

There is the argument that e.g. the core devs are employed by the Core Team dao which is subcontracting to the network on a rolling monthly basis - therefore a decision like this must be followed. I agree with that to a point, but really budget proposals are supposed to financially incentivize people to take action. This proposal isn't financially incentivizing anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if these type of proposals are often contentious / not followed in Dash's future.

Andy Freer

EDIT: BTW, this requires a hard fork, so it's not something we can just change back and forth easily right now so we should put a lot of thought behind it (i agree 5 is too much right now personally but i would be more conservative with the reduction for security / technical reasons)
Click to expand...

Your way of thinking is simply wrong. Α governance decision should precede any implementation proposal. Why a free lancer developer to spend his time investigating how to change the Dash code, if he is not sure that the masternodes want that? Thats why those kind of questions are tottaly needed to be answered by the masternodes. They are not implementation proposals, they are just governance questions, that will incentivize free lancer developers outside the core team to start searching implementation solutions, and then make their implementation proposals to the budget system that are compatible to the governance decisions.

The governance type questions will boost dash, they will free it from the salary paid developers (which tend to have a civil servant behavior). What is really at stake in this very vote, it is whether the free developers or the paid employees developers will lead dash's future. And I prefer the free market rather than the employees-servants.

I hope to have mass participation in this vote, because this will show that the masternodes operators (regardless whether they agree or not to the specific question) they understand the huge value that those governance-type questions have.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
Your way of thinking is simply wrong. Α governance decision should precede any implementation proposal. Why a free lancer developer to spend his time investigating how to change the Dash code, if he is not sure that the masternodes want that? Thats why those kind of questions are tottaly needed to be answered by the masternodes. They are not implementation proposals, they are just governance questions, that will incentivize free lancer developers outside the core team to start searching implementation solutions, and then make their implementation proposals to the budget system that are compatible to the governance decisions.

The governance type questions will boost dash, they will free it from the salary paid developers (which tend to have a civil servant behavior). What is really at stake in this very vote, it is whether the free developers or the paid employees developers will lead dash's future. And I prefer the free market rather than the employees-servants.

I hope to have mass participation in this vote, because this will show that the masternodes operators (regardless whether they agree or not to the specific question) they understand the huge value that those governance-type questions have.
Click to expand...

I totally understand this proposal and I am 100% voting AGAINST it! and I would advise other masternode owners to do the same, think carefully do u really want to create a hard fork?
 
AndyDark said:
Hi Acedian

I won't comment on the actual fee I think we should have right now. But just to point out, these proposals that just ask a question aren't always going to get results because proposals only work when they pay someone to do something (this is the fundamental incentive modal of the budget system). For example, this proposal should really pay a dev (whoever) to implement the code change and PR it to the dashpay repo.

There is the argument that e.g. the core devs are employed by the Core Team dao which is subcontracting to the network on a rolling monthly basis - therefore a decision like this must be followed. I agree with that to a point, but really budget proposals are supposed to financially incentivize people to take action. This proposal isn't financially incentivizing anyone so I wouldn't be surprised if these type of proposals are often contentious / not followed in Dash's future.

Andy Freer

EDIT: BTW, this requires a hard fork, so it's not something we can just change back and forth easily right now so we should put a lot of thought behind it (i agree 5 is too much right now personally but i would be more conservative with the reduction for security / technical reasons)
Click to expand...
I kind of disagree with that to the point that proposals should always pay someone. IMO it's a nice way to get idea of what majority of actively participating MNOs are up to and we wouldn't be able to get this data otherwise. So even though there is no direct incentive to implement this it's a pro-active way to tweak the system which is IMO much better than "implement smth, no one is happy - no/slow adoption, lots of complains and needless discussions,... repeat...".

Regarding the proposal, IMO 0.1 is not going to work at current price levels. I'd say proposal fee should be smth comparably high to make <$100 proposals economically not reasonable. Smth like 1 DASH would work better for now IMO.

Fee can be technically lowered without "hard fork"-like migration (which would require protocol bump, everyone to upgrade, masternode start, etc). This would still require majority masternodes to upgrade between 2 budget cycles to get new proposals propagated and voted properly but it's risky and can lead to chain split if not executed in timely manner because with no protocol bump there is no way to safely cut off old nodes.

There was an idea somewhere (in original thread?) to compute fee for the next cycle based on the use of previous budget(s) which I like actually - it sounds pretty close to diff adjustment we have for PoW, so why not? I think that one worth investigating a bit more...
 
Agree 100% with the above suggestion.

Some sort of system that adjusts the fee based on the number of proposals as well as the total budget allocated over say the past three or so months is a great idea. IMO, that is a much more robust and elegant solution than just dropping the fee 50x suddenly.
 
UdjinM6 said:
I kind of disagree with that to the point that proposals should always pay someone. IMO it's a nice way to get idea of what majority of actively participating MNOs are up to and we wouldn't be able to get this data otherwise. So even though there is no direct incentive to implement this it's a pro-active way to tweak the system which is IMO much better than "implement smth, no one is happy - no/slow adoption, lots of complains and needless discussions,... repeat...".

Regarding the proposal, IMO 0.1 is not going to work at current price levels. I'd say proposal fee should be smth comparably high to make <$100 proposals economically not reasonable. Smth like 1 DASH would work better for now IMO.

Fee can be technically lowered without "hard fork"-like migration (which would require protocol bump, everyone to upgrade, masternode start, etc). This would still require majority masternodes to upgrade between 2 budget cycles to get new proposals propagated and voted properly but it's risky and can lead to chain split if not executed in timely manner because with no protocol bump there is no way to safely cut off old nodes.

There was an idea somewhere (in original thread?) to compute fee for the next cycle based on the use of previous budget(s) which I like actually - it sounds pretty close to diff adjustment we have for PoW, so why not? I think that one worth investigating a bit more...
Click to expand...

I think it's fine if the contractor, e.g. core team, is willing to obey the signal like your dev team is UdjinM6 :) I'm thinking more generally in the commercial world contracts aren't enforcable without joint agreement around a consideration, i.e. if a client commissions a developer to build an app using a contract (proposal), then they want to change something later, the original contract still stands unless the developer agrees to a new contract (and gets paid for it), the only enforcement by the client is to revoke the original contract if they refuse. So I guess yes the core team will follow signals but in future there might be other bodies or DAOs etc that will just stick to the obligations of the contract they did agree on. One solution (for future) could be to build in the milestones / deliverables that have been talked about which could penalize the contractor financially if they didn't do certain things e.g. follow signals within an agreed framework.

Like the dynamic fee idea and yes I see what you mean, it could be done without a protocol bump although not the safest option then :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top