Refund proposal fee if net votes > X%

[TheSingleton]

Hey everyone,

I heard this brought up a couple of times and I think it would be a good idea to refund the proposal fee if the proposal in question is good. The proposal fee should only discourage dishonest and low value proposals. But it might also discourage good proposals, so to encourage a good competition and not punish proposal owners that have put in honest work. I think we need this change.

What do you think?
If there is sufficient interest I might post a proper proposal to the treasury.

Also, it would be great to hear back from core about what it would take to implement this.

 

[Naruto]

It is a good idea, I just wonder it may not be easy to implement such change to the protocol .


DiscordTag
Naruto#5568

 

[TroyDASH]

Yes, absolutely.
At 5% auto-reimbursement:
- The purpose of the proposal fee - the disincentive to spam many proposals or create bad proposals - still exists.
- One of the (unintended, imo) consequences of the current system - discouraging proposal owners who have good/popular proposals that were not able to be passed - is lessened.
- Proposals will no longer need to build in +5 Dash reimbursement into their ask, increasing the total amount of budget funds that will be available for everyone else. 5 Dash is not significant in itself but with every proposal doing it, it adds up.

I can't speak to technical side but *if* the protocol was coded to do it this way, I would see it as an improvement over the current protocol.

 

[AlejandroE]

If this is a possibility (technically speaking) it would be absolutely awesome. If a proposal gets at least 5% it means that it has some potential and a lot of MNOs like it, so it is a shame that the 5 DASH just get burn. The proposal owner can fix, make the propper adjustments and submit the proposal again. This don't hurt anybody, instead, it gives more possibilities to Dash for funding good a constant projects.

This will absolutely benefit the Dash proposals ecosystem

I hope this idea becomes in a real fact!

Best,
Alejandro

 

[Wilmar Toro]

This is a good idea, it also would be useful to those cycles where many proposals are submitted, and many are approved, but due to budget limit they are rejected. (I really don't know well how it works in those scenarios).

We can use a feature that some ICO´s do: to set up a kind of "soft cap" and a "hard cap":
Hard cap: the proposal get enough votes to be founded.
Soft cap: The proposal don't get enough votes to get aproved, but good enough to recover the proposal fee.

Idk, just brainstorming

 

[JOL]

If there are changes to be made to the budget, there are certainly plenty of other possibilities than just refunding. And it seems to me that our budget is relatively full, it does not seem to me a priority at the moment. I prefer that Evolution's development has no distraction.

 

[jesccs]

Excellent proposal and totally in agreement.
At times when the available budget is tight, there are many proposals left out for lack of funds and not because they are good for the DASH network. This would give the proposal's owners the opportunity to refine and wait for another less competitive cycle!

 

[Barrett Davis]

This makes sense, as I will be submitting a proposal with a reimbursement fee.

 

[TheSingleton]

If there are changes to be made to the budget, there are certainly plenty of other possibilities than just refunding. And it seems to me that our budget is relatively full, it does not seem to me a priority at the moment. I prefer that Evolution's development has no distraction.

This is why I would like to know from core how much effort it is to implement this change. If it would delay evolution for a month then, of course, that would be a bad idea. But I suspect/hope that with the large development team in place now I could be done without delaying evolution significantly.

 

[JOL]

This is why I would like to know from core how much effort it is to implement this change. If it would delay evolution for a month then, of course, that would be a bad idea. But I suspect/hope that with the large development team in place now I could be done without delaying evolution significantly.

I share your point of view that the governance system must evolve. Before I start thinking about modifying the code we know, I would wait to see what the Evolution code will tighten and all the possibilities brought by Evolution to not have to redo or rethink everything.

It's just a timing difference, no goal.

 

[Nuancer]

Yes, the Dash Network should reimburse fees for popular-but-not-funded proposals. If a proposal is voted with majority yes votes (net positive >0%) this is an accomplishment and should be rewarded with a reimbursed fee so that the proposal owner is encouraged to improve their proposal and try again.

If this change is difficult to code into the protocol, I would vote for a manual fee-reimbursement program. Whoever steps up with this proposal would be providing a valuable service to the Dash network.

 

[Arthyron]

I wouldn't be opposed to this change, but do realize the impact it will have. If proposal fees are refunded, this will have its own consequences on how many people who might not have submitted proposals will be doing so. Also, it will impact how MNOs vote as well. Votes will directly impact which proposals will receive their fees back even when they are not sufficient to pass. I suspect this will change voting patterns, for better or for worse.

 

[jesccs]

I wouldn't be opposed to this change, but do realize the impact it will have. If proposal fees are refunded, this will have its own consequences on how many people who might not have submitted proposals will be doing so. Also, it will impact how MNOs vote as well. Votes will directly impact which proposals will receive their fees back even when they are not sufficient to pass. I suspect this will change voting patterns, for better or for worse.

i got your point! I understand clearly that this can change the voting pattern and those who post proposals know and accept the "game's rules". At the same time it is a shame that there are proposals so interesting for DASH network that they are going to be out of funds in months (like this April's cycle) where the treasury budget has run out.

In countries like mine (Venezuela) get 5 DASH to send a proposal, means a significant economic effort for individuals and small businesses and lost money because an "external force" is hard to assume.

Maybe, the DASH should not be returned. If those proposals that achieve more than 5% have the opportunity to re-propose their project once again (allowing adjustments to the budget, for example), could be a nice improvement and valuable "second chance"