Regarding the proposal to reduce the proposal fee [META]

Regarding pegging to a specific USD amount.

Two challenges:

1) The cost (time and/or money) of such a change is signifigantly more that the proposed change.
2) The solution could introduce security vulnerabilities.

The security problem is how do you have an oracle reporting the USD price that is not hacked? I believe this is possible but is a Research and Development Problem.

In the future Dash Platform may support oracles. If oracles were live for six months, maybe the network should revisit this idea @Gabriel Salinas

Cheers!!

Gabriel Salinas said:
I like this.

Maybe this is a little bit out of topic but even if the proposal fee is decreased by 4 ᕭ the problem will persist due to the volatility. Wouldn't it be better to pledge the Dash proposal fee to a fix usd amount?
Click to expand...
 
qwizzie said:
Anti-Dash actors just gonna love this : only 1 dash to troll the Dash community for life, directly in our Dash budget section of Dash Central.
Click to expand...

Troll refers and occurs when talking. There is no troll when voting.

Dash community can simply ignore troll proposals, by refusing to cast a vote on them.

Furthermore, it is very important to implement a tag system when casting budget proposals, and also a tag system when voting for them.

The voter, along with his/her yes/no/abstain/number vote, should also be allowed to put tags to the proposal.
That way, whenever the "troll" tag becomes popular, this is a clear sign of the quality of the proposal and makes it easier for other voters to ignore the proposal and filter it from their view.

It is very important for the Dash community to succeed in the task of implementing an effective decentralized governance system. This is exactly what the centralized world monetary system is afraid of.
 
Last edited:
qwizzie said:
I could not find any impact of the proposal fee on our number of budget proposals, so i am very doubtfull lowering the proposal fee will have any effect.
Click to expand...

I could find no evidence that a lower proposal fee would increase spam, there was no spam when DASH was $35 and none at $1600. Spam has a very distinct meaning, it is something of no material value. The dash.crypto proposals were not spam, the reasons you give for them being spam are invalid
  • Too long duration
  • Low quality project
  • Top-up model
None of those are indications of spam, the proposal was however of little value to DASH and potentially harmful since Julio seemed to be trying to wrestle control of the network for himself.
 
xkcd said:
I could find no evidence that a lower proposal fee would increase spam, there was no spam when DASH was $35 and none at $1600.
Click to expand...

That is because Dash proposal fee itself was not $35, it was $175 (lowest price x 5) and dash proposal fee was not $1,600, it was $8,000 (highest price x5)
This decision proposal which imposes a -80% reduction on the proposal fee (from 5 dash to 1 dash) drastically lowers all that, possibly opening the door wide open for spam proposals / low quality proposals / person-focused decision propsals, possibly leading to even lower voting participation among MNO's.

Then there is a very optimistic view from many yes voters that the proposal fee can always be raised afterwards if necessary (eventhough it requires non-trivial coding from devs, due to our multi-month proposals getting invalidated if we try to raise it later on), or that we can implement some kind of spam filter.

Which makes me wonder if this has been really thought through, if all possible negative side effects have been fully taken into consideration before launching this decision proposal.

We have a very large inconsistency in the proposal text (''The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased''), which gets addrressed only somewhere in the 423 comments on Dash Central (and somewhere on Discord apparently), and we have a dev already started coding the implementation of this decision proposal 8 days ago (almost at the start of this proposal), with a cliff hanger if that implementation can even be implemented :

617MkTC.jpg

Source : https://github.com/dashpay/dash/pull/4241

Dash Central comments about this :

6jzNGgb.jpg
 
Last edited:
qwizzie said:
This decision proposal which imposes a -80% reduction on the proposal fee (from 5 dash to 1 dash) drastically lowers all that, possibly opening the door wide open for spam proposals / low quality proposals / person-focused decision propsals, possibly leading to even lower voting participation among MNO's.
Click to expand...

The reduction of the proposal fee could be implemented as a spork, and in case your worries become truth, the network could easily revert the decision.

qwizzie said:
Together with a very optimistic view from many yes voters that it can always be changed afterwards if necessary (eventhough it requires non-trivial coding from devs, due to our multi-month proposals getting invalidated if we try to raise it later on), or that we can implement some kind of spam filter.
Click to expand...
Invalidate a multi-month proposal because the proposal owner paid a fixed proposal fee and later on the proposal fee was increased? It makes no sence! No need to invalidate it!

Additionaly the filtering and the classification of the proposals is a great idea, which is waiting patiently for the dash community to embrace it.
 
Last edited:
vazaki3 said:
Invalidate a multi-month proposal because the proposal owner paid a fixed proposal fee and later on the proposal fee was increased?
It makes no sence! No need to invalidate it!
Click to expand...

7b3oRcE.jpg


As you can see this is directly coming from the creator of this decision proposal. Personally if UdjinM6 (Dash lead developer) states something like that, i tend to believe him.
 
So, the way they wrote the code makes difficult for the proposal fee to increase.

In that case, after reducing the proposal fee, lets be prepared and plan to change the code.

Code: 
IF SPORK_24_PROPOSAL_FEE changes value THEN do not invalidate old proposals.

It is not big deal, IMHO.

Could you please point to the original quote of @UdjinM6 ?
 
Last edited:
vazaki3 said:
So, the way they wrote the code makes difficult for the proposal fee to increase.

In that case, lets change the code.

IF SPORK_FEE is set to 0 again THEN do not invalidate old proposals.

It is not big deal, IMHO.

Could you please point to the original quote of @UdjinM6 ?
Click to expand...

You have to ask DashCollective for that, i just made a screenshot of the conversation between name3 and DashCollective where this came to light.
The screenshot was from comments in Dash Central.
 
qwizzie said:
You have to ask DashCollective for that, i just made a screenshot of the conversation between name3 and DashCollective where this came to light.
The screenshot was from comments in Dash Central.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info.
But I refuse to participate to dashcentral, because they require for me to reveal my voting address.
 
DashCollective is a confederacy of mediocrities and unemployables who's main goal in life is to receive free money from the Dash treasury every month. They banded together to defeat RT's proposal to have unspent treasury funds shared by MNOs and miners. That was not in their interest. Why they would want to lower the proposal fee is obvious.

And meanwhile Dash continues to lose mindshare. Someone I spoke to recently said, "You don't hear much about Dash anymore." The market cap of Shiba Inu is twice as much as Dash.
 
Geert said:
DashCollective is a confederacy of mediocrities and unemployables who's main goal in life is to receive free money from the Dash treasury every month. They banded together to defeat RT's proposal to have unspent treasury funds shared by MNOs and miners. That was not in their interest. Why they would want to lower the proposal fee is obvious.

And meanwhile Dash continues to lose mindshare. Someone I spoke to recently said, "You don't hear much about Dash anymore." The market cap of Shiba Inu is twice as much as Dash.
Click to expand...


DashCollective DCG is a confederacy of mediocrities, unemployables, eternal salarymen and hidden government agents who's main goal in life is to neutralize and destroy Dash's decentralized governance system and receive free money from the Dash treasury every month. DCG received 295438 USD salaries for june-august 2020, for doing almost nothing!!!!

Due to the pathetic governance of DCG (alligned to the US, EU and China regulators who wish Dash's destruction) Dash continues to lose mindshare, and falls into the pit of despair and oblivion.
 
Last edited:
Since you like Latin, let's use some more Latin. Cui Bono?

Who benefits if we lower the proposal fee? I would say it's the same people who we've been funding on and off for years who refuse to stop pestering the DAO for funds. These people don't have the ability to help us. They've become like courtiers -- persons who seeks favor by flattery, charm, etc.
 
Geert said:
Since you like Latin, let's use some more Latin. Cui Bono?

Who benefits if we lower the proposal fee? I would say it's the same people who we've been funding on and off for years who refuse to stop pestering the DAO for funds. These people don't have the ability to help us. They've become like courtiers -- persons who seeks favor by flattery, charm, etc.
Click to expand...
If new people and new ideas have not the ability to help Dash, who can help it?

Dash fall from the 6th place to the 69th, due to the lack of ideas and due to the lack of a new active and competitive Dash generation.
 
Dash is boring. We are executing an ancient, six year old plan that needs to be changed to generate excitement. We can't change because there is a leadership vacuum at the moment. So the coders keep coding and the marketers keep marketing a product that is no longer exciting or relevant.
 
Geert said:
Dash is boring. We are executing an ancient, six year old plan that needs to be changed to generate excitement. We can't change because there is a leadership vacuum at the moment. So the coders keep coding and the marketers keep marketing a product that is no longer exciting or relevant.
Click to expand...

There is no leadership vacuum, imho. There is governance vacuum.
Governance can be applied either by a leader or by the vote of a community.
I prefer the second case.
If you prefer the first case, could you please name the leader?
 
Last edited:
If we don't have good leadership and if we don't start winning in the marketplace there will be nothing to govern.
 
qwizzie said:
Which makes me wonder if this has been really thought through, if all possible negative side effects have been fully taken into consideration before launching this decision proposal.
Click to expand...
Yes, this has been thought through and is well understood, quit your fearmongering, the worst that can happen is a few more garbage proposals appear in the DAO that you need to swift through, big deal, small price to pay for 150 more DASH available in the DAO for funding proposals and the oppurtunity for more people to pitch their ideas to the network, overall we want to stimulate activity in the DAO not stifle it like you do.
 
xkcd said:
Yes, this has been thought through and is well understood, quit your fearmongering, the worst that can happen is a few more garbage proposals appear in the DAO that you need to swift through, big deal, small price to pay for 150 more DASH available in the DAO for funding proposals and the oppurtunity for more people to pitch their ideas to the network, overall we want to stimulate activity in the DAO not stifle it like you do.
Click to expand...

So if this has been thought through, then why does the proposal text (still) states the following condition : 'The proposal fee can only every be lowered, never increased'
when that apparently is incorrect according comments on Dash Central ? Furthermore, why have something so completely incorrect in the proposal text in the first place and why not be more specific about the difficulties with raising the proposal fee (pointed out by UdjinM6) if this decision proposal passes ?

The above does point to things not been thought through, before this decision proposal was created. Not to mention other points i mentioned in a previous post leading me to believe that things were not thought through with this proposal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top