Welcome!

"Finding your real worth is not a step backwards. We are discovering what people are willing to pay for our attention. You seem to think we are only worth 1 dash."

Just going through the comments one last time before the deadline and this comment struck me. Its an interesting accusation. Mainly because up until now, even after reading this comment the first time, I had never considered the 5 Dash proposal fee as a "fee for MNO attention".

To me, the proposal fee was just that, the anti-spam fee you must pay to put up a proposal. But thinking about it some more, GrandmasterDash's perspective here is actually the correct one. Unfortunately, upon realizing this, I notice that it also further weakens the rationale for this idea and not only solidifies my support for the current 5 Dash fee, but also provides rationale to even think about RAISING the fee (the opposite of this proposals intent).

Basically, the 5 Dash proposal fee is not just the anti-spam cost, but as GMD said, its the cost of MNO attention to proposals. Its our "fee" for reading, reviewing and ultimately voting on your proposal, though that fee doesn't go to us. So, contrary to the thrust of this post and DashQueenApp/hipnotic's beliefs, this line of thinking (that the fee is for MNO attention, not just anti-spam) heavily implies that we should MAKE THE PROPOSAL FEE AS BIG AS POSSIBLE (but no more)!

Think about it. When you 'make a proposal', to your boss, hell, even if you just are typing up an email to him/her, most competent employees will double check and triple check their submission for errors, logical inconsistencies, and stupid mistakes, etc.

You not only are going to do whatever you can to avoid mistakes, but you're also going to avoid any unnecessary, unimportant and banal communication **at all**, lest you say something untoward/stupid and get fired. And I'm pretty sure most peoples' bosses don't have $200k in liquid assets lying around like MNOs do (even if they "make" 200k a year, they don't take all of that home).

So, just from that alone, we should definitely WANT POs to value the time and attention of MNOs AT LEAST as much as they value their bosses time and attention. Most likely more. I mean, you're talking to a class of investors with AT LEAST $200k USD worth of assets.

THIS SHOULD BE SCARY! Just like you wouldn't go in front of a large crowd or on stage without both preparation and something of actual value to contribute to the program, neither should just any old idea be able to get the attention of MNOs.

The point is, you want to make it so that POs have that kind of feeling. They *should be* uneasy about possibly losing their money. They SHOULD FEEL like they're being scrutinized, evaluated, poked and prodded (a little bit), and even turned over. Because this isn't a damn game. This isn't some toy pet project or social club "where everybody needs to shmooze, fit in, and 'get comfortable'". **THIS IS AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR DAY JOB!**

And its the 5 Dash proposal fee that let's POs know that. Its the fact that it costs you 5 Dash to make a proposal that keeps POs on their toes. DashQueenApp alleged that I have never submitted a proposal as an attack against me. And they're correct, I have not submitted a proposal in all these years despite having MANY IDEAS that I've wanted to throw before the network. Why not?

BECAUSE NONE OF THEM WERE WORTH 5 DASH. NONE OF THEM WERE GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME TO WANT TO WASTE THE MNOS TIME.

I had a private argument with Ryan Taylor over just one of these ideas, as I too felt frustration over certain happenings with the treasury, and I asked Ryan what he thought about "my idea". And he summarily showed me why DCG and friends are in the trenches writing code, and *I'm in the cheap seats cheering on*!

It was a silly idea (that I can no longer even remember) but I needed to get that negative feedback to figure out WHY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, all of this happened without a SINGLE MNO (besides Mr. Taylor) having to spend any time reviewing and destroying my idea and wasting brain food trying to figure out if it was dumb or not (it was).

So not only was my ego spared the public humiliation of failure, not only did I not waste 5 Dash,, BUT MNOS' PRECIOUS TIME WAS ALSO SPARED! Because my idea wasn't worth 5 Dash to me (after getting feedback). If that fee was lower? I might've gone through with it. The 5 Dash proposal fee serving as a 5 Dash 'MNO attenition' fee is actually a brilliant way to look at it, so I must thank you, GrandMasterDash, for opening my perspective. I had never really even considered the fee that way.

Unfortunately, however, this new perspective only further solidifies my opposition to lowering it. If we truly believe that it is the 'price for MNO attention', then it should be AS HIGH AS FEASIBLE so that the process I went through is repeated EVERYTIME a PO has an idea. Of course, its possible that "5 Dash" is *already* as high as feasible (without negatively affecting proposal submission rates) and in such case we should do nothing. But this indicates that at the least, *raising the fee* should ALSO be on the table!

That way (raised a little or just 5 Dash), THE BURDEN OF REVIEWING THE IDEA falls on the PO and the LIMITED feedback they seek and recieve. If they still think the idea is good after that, then the 5 Dash fee for MNO attention should be worth it. Lowering this fee will have the effect of pushing the "feedback phase" closer and closer to the fore until every PO with an idea is trying to expend our attention and the MNOs will not only become exhausted, they will no longer value the treasury or voting.

In summary, no matter how you look at it, the 5 Dash proposal fee forces the "feedback phase" to take place on the POs time and at their expense. Not the rest of the community. So only the very BEST IDEAS filter through.

I don't think as a network we could ask for much more than that.

I have said elsewhere in these comments that the optimum proposal fee might also be higher. This proposal suggested 1 to 5 dash because it's the least controversial and covers the range of prices most often mentioned whenever the subject comes up. I never considered this proposal as the end game, more a work in progress that would most likely need some tweaking as the results unfold. There is much work that needs to be done to the treasury system and this could of been the starting point, not the end point.

Not everyone lives a cozy lifestyle where 5 dash is readily obtainable. In fact, 5 dash is literally one month's income from that $200k investment you cite. I'm sure most Filipino's, for example, will tell you how unobtainable 5 dash is - far more than one month's income - let alone the prospect of failure. Clearly, you don't want to read and evaluate 1 dash proposals from less well off countries, but I would. In over 6 years, we've only ever had one successful proposal directly from the Philippines and they never came back.

I know the standard response to this; to fund raise proposal fees from the community, or reboot Dash Boost. That fund raising is an artifact of an inflexible treasury system. A one size fits all for the entire population of the world.

We've all got different ideas what the proposal fee should be but you're not willing to put that to the test and discover it's real worth. I'm not saying you're wrong in your assertion, only that the mechanism to discover the price be fair, balanced and inclusive. Now show me a mechanism to do that.

1. I think you should consider this proposal as the end game. At least for now. You put your idea to the network and the answer is no.

2. I don't think you've sourced your contention that "there is much work that needs to be done to the treasury". What work? What needs to be done? The treasury works very well. As you can see, we can easily filter out proposals that we do not agree with using our votes. Still, we have 16 proposals fully funded spliting $ 1mil USD. What more do you want? (Not a rhetorical question)

3. Your "cozy lifestyle" comment just further proves I was correct when I said you're missing the point. The point of the DAO is not to "be accessible" to the world financially. The point of the DAO is to SPREAD DASH AS FAR AND FAST AS POSSIBLE. As long as that's happening, which it is, other concerns take priority over increasing proposals, like anti-spam and anti-infiltration features.

You do not address the need for these features, even though they have already protected us for years from spam. Spam and infiltration proposals are not just about the fee, its as you said, MNO attention. No matter what you change the game theory to, the fact is our attention remains limited. So there's little justification for increasing the cost to it.

Dash funds more third world proposals than any other cryptocurrency. Venezuela, the country hardest hit by hyperinflation, has no trouble getting 3-4 proposals in every cycle. So your heartstring-tugging lacks conviction and thus effect.

> "In over 6 years, we've only ever had one successful proposal directly from the Philippines and they never came back."

I'm pretty sure you're wrong here:

"Dash Philippines
Yesterday at 3:37 AM ·

Dash NEXT is thrilled to announce that DIA is partnering with us to enable the Dash merchant and developer community access to the broader DeFi ecosystem. The first step towards this goal is the integration of DIA oracles to the Dash platform as well as making Dash price and data feeds available to Ethereum and other L1 and L2 protocols through DIA’s open-source oracle platform. Read more here: https://medium.com/…/partnership-with-dash-next-1aeff02d9735"

https://www.facebook.com/dashphp/

Dash Phillipines is covered under the Dash Next proposal in Asia IIRC and as that link indicates. So your only example in support of your conclusion is wrong. Doesn't bode well for the rest of your argument.

>That fund raising is an artifact of an inflexible treasury system. A one size fits all for the entire population of the world.

That is not a criticism at all. If you really cared about "low income proposals" then you would be intrigued by the possibility of DashBoost returning. That you dismiss it without even considering it heavily indicates you are not being forthcoming with your motivations for this push. I say again that it is good that this did not pass.

Your screed operates only under the false assumption that the purpose of the DAO and treasury is to give EVERYONE free money. The purpose of the DAO is to spread Dash (free money basically) to as many people as possible yes, but that's not the end goal its only a MEANS to an end.

The end of having a fully distributed and decentralized supply. Its not about 'eliminating poverty', or 'charity' or anything like that. Its about making Dash's distribution as fair as possible, as fast as possible. Other coins are now in a mad Dash to "follow our lead" on this (weNano, noise.cash faucets), but their efforts are horribly short-sighted, reactionary and thus ineffective. Exactly what the effect of this proposal would be.

>We've all got different ideas what the proposal fee should be but you're not willing to put that to the test and discover it's real worth.

A coward's charge. Only a fool fixes that which isn't broken. Only a coward pretends to know that which he cannot to win an argument. Sure you pretend to be "open" with your "I'm not saying you're wrong", but that's a shill's "I'm not saying you're wrong'. I.e. that's just a LINE they give you right before they SPEND ALL THEIR ENERGY AND TIME TRYING TO PROVE YOU WRONG.

"But I'm totally not sure though! Just spitballing! You never know!"

In other words, its dishonest and disingenuous, just like you're being. You haven't proven why there should need to be a "mechanism to discover the price", you're just trying to be a disruptive and cause as many "changes" as possible so you can build momentum to a more destructive change to make Dash less effective against our competition it seems like.

"The point of the DAO is to SPREAD DASH AS FAR AND FAST AS POSSIBLE. As long as that's happening, which it is, other concerns take priority over increasing proposals, like anti-spam and anti-infiltration features."

Not factually correct. Show me a proposal from Russia, China, Iran or Indonesia. I guess we have a different idea of what "far and wide" means. Or perhaps you meant to say, the same old faces accumulate or liquidate the same old dash.

Dash Next is NOT a direct proposal from the Philippines. They are based in Thailand with a Philippines outpost and, unfortunately, they have made very little progress in the Philippines. Sorry, but you know absolutely NOTHING about money and crypto in the Philippines. The minor successes they had have extremely low liquidity (and large spreads) and it's just easier and cheaper for locals to use centralized apps like gcash. Dash Next can't do the grassroots action that is required to get a foothold there. Go ahead and ask them, what's their remit? - Dash Next is primarily aimed at larger integration projects.

Let me show you. LocalCryptos - a Dash Next integration - has just one dash offer with zero trades: https://localcryptos.com/Dash/Philippines

Your repeated claims of "spam and infiltration" have never been tested or proven, how could they be if you insist on being a dinosaur?

Dash Boost was not a trust-less system, you should know that.

I have no idea where you get the idea I want everyone to have free money. Just inserting crap and hoping someone believes it?

"I'm not saying you're wrong" is exactly what I've said all along. I've given you a proposal which accommodates every 5 dash maximalist out there. You only want to vote on 5 dash (or more) proposals, go right ahead, but no, the real coward is you for voting No. Your fears that other MNOs would dare to look at proposals costing less. You have absolutely no faith in yourself or your peers. I'm more than happy to explore the idea that proposals could cost more than 5 dash, I've never said otherwise. Everything in this proposal is about price discovery.

As for "spitballing", I have no idea who said that.

"Not factually correct. Show me a proposal from Russia, China, Iran or Indonesia."

https://beta.dashwatch.org/labs

It is your assertion that is factually incorrect. Russia and China respectively the 2nd and 3rd for Dash.org visits according to DashWatch (which goes to the original point of Dash being spread far and wide).

Russia is also 6th for android downloads (I don't think they use Android phones with google services installed in China, so probably no android metrics from there). So you changing the argument from "spread far and wide" to "show me a proposal in this country" is you moving the goalposts and debating disingenuously.

You don't need to have a proposal in your country to see massive growth. Jamaica saw 400x growth last year and there has never been a proposal from a country in that region that passed IIRC. So clearly your self-serving and disingenuous equivalence (no proposal = not far and wide) is false.

Furthermore, you're wrong again, Indonesia is ALSO serviced under the DashNext proposal. You're going to counter with your 'direct' garbage again, but the fact remains they have gotten exchange integrations and other partnerships there, which proves YOU'RE WRONG! Here in this quote you can see that DashNext covers both the Phillipines as well as Indonesia:

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/dash-next-bizdev-pr-marketing-adoption-i

"This is a groundbreaking achievement not only for **the Philippines**, but for the global Dash community and the Dash remittances use case around the world. Also a small merchant ecosystem is getting established, media coverage is getting pushed, multiple online meetups as well as conference partnerships took place. Similarly, we have also entered **the Indonesian market** as the first exchanges are now offering Rupia to Dash trading pairs."

Finally, there actually already was a successful proposal from Iran:

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Dash_Iran_Q3_2019

So, again your **entire** counter-argument relies on false claims and unresearched thoughts.

>I guess we have a different idea of what "far and wide" means

Perhaps, but you clearly have a different idea of what 'research' means, than I do. I spent literally 5 seconds to find this information, yet you couldn't despite paying nearly $1000 to hear an aswer that you could've figured out yourself with a little duckduckgoing. That's not a glowing endorsement of you in any shape or form.

>Or perhaps you meant to say, the same old faces accumulate or liquidate the same old dash.

That's not what's happening though. We have new proposals all the time, old faces are still distributing the budget they recieve to **NEW HANDS**. That's what we care about. You are trying to help some phantom poor proposal people.

Tell me, what can someone who doesn't have any money do for the Dash network? The Dash network is here to **help them**, not the other way around. If you can't get $1000 dollars together, or worse, you don't have 5 Dash from long time investment, then maybe writing a proposal isn't right for you. There's nothing wrong with that either. I have both and writing a proposal still isn't for me. The problem is you won't let us or anyone else accept that. To you, this is unacceptable for some weird reason.

>Or perhaps you meant to say, the same old faces accumulate or liquidate the same old dash.

Regardless, the statement that the Phillipines doesn't have proposal and thus Dash isn't recieving coverage there is not correct. That was what we're talking about, right?

Whether or not the treasury is providing DAO funds to the people in that region. Nobody cared about "direct" or not, that word doesn't even really have any meaning in this context. The fact is they have proposal representation which is exactly what you alleged they didn't have. Which means YOU WERE WRONG.

>Sorry, but you know absolutely NOTHING about money and crypto in the Philippines.

I never said I did, so no need to apologize. But this statement:

"we've only ever had one successful proposal directly from the Philippines and they never came back."

Is not true. DashNext is another proposal "directly" from the Phillipines. Look, you either have a proposal in the Phillipines or you don't. And we do, so whatever you're saying is garbage.

You're trying to draw distinctions where there are none to avoid admitting you were wrong. DashNext covers several countries in Asia with LOCAL people. Their level of success is NOTWITHSTANDING THIS DISCUSSION and you move the goalposts when you pretend that it isn't.

>The minor successes they had have extremely low liquidity (and large spreads) and it's just easier and cheaper for locals to use centralized apps like gcash.

This is NOT what we're talking about. None of that has ANYTHING TO DO with the 5 Dash proposal fee. The reason for Dash's success or lack thereof in the Phillipines is NOT because they don't have enough proposals, its because the people and financial infrastructure are not suitable for Dash at this time. That's all. More proposals WON'T FIX THAT.

LARGER ONES (peopled by people with more social and local influence, WHICH DOESN'T COME BY LETTING PEOPLE SPAM PROPOSALS) will however fix it. So once again you're focused on the wrong aspect of the problem (quantity instead of quality).

>Let me show you. LocalCryptos - a Dash Next integration - has just one dash offer with zero trades: https://localcryptos.com/Dash/Philippines


That doesn't show me anything. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THAT IS A RESULT OF THE 5 DASH FEE before you can act like you've won something. Otherwise you're just moving the goalposts, we're not talking about Dash's adoption or lack thereof in the Phillipines. You said we don't have proposals there AND YOU WERE WRONG. We do have proposals there. Whether they're effective or not (which I don't concede that they're not) is IMMATERIAL!

>Your repeated claims of "spam and infiltration" have never been tested or proven, how could they be if you insist on being a dinosaur?

LIAR. I've called out AND DEFEATED many spammers and infiltrators with sources and proof. Flenst, Henrygeorgist, georgeDonnelly, Ed stover, Joel Valenzuela and others have all SUCCESSFULLY AND FACTFULLY been called out by my efforts along with the efforts of others in the network.

So you're LYING, it HAS BEEN PROVEN that I was correct. We have many people attempting to infiltrate our network and subtly shift the narrative in destructive ways and you poo-pooing this idea doesn't reflect well on you in this regard, let me tell you.

>Dash Boost was not a trust-less system, you should know that.

Irrelevant. DashBoost was a DAO. Everything doesn't have to be trust-less, just the fundamentals. You should know this.

>I have no idea where you get the idea I want everyone to have free money. Just inserting crap and hoping someone believes it?

Mostly from this line:

>Not everyone lives a cozy lifestyle where 5 dash is readily obtainable.

This is classic agit-prop emotional torture so I couldn't resist. Appealing to the poor in the phillipines as emotional backdrop was a nice touch, except we already have DAO coverage in the Phillipines so that doesn't help your 5 Dash fee argument. Nice try moving the goalposts to 'adoption' but you should already know you can't trick me like that...

>"I'm not saying you're wrong" is exactly what I've said all along.

Right, because giving small, token concessions is a requirement to get one to lower their guard enough to swallow the poison pill. I understand, but the point is this is disingenous behavior.

>I've given you a proposal which accommodates every 5 dash maximalist out there.

If you really wanted to 'accomodate us', you wouldn't skip the first and most important step of justifying this change in the first place. Your repeated insistence at avoiding this is just further fuel on the flame of your credibility.

>the real coward is you for voting No.

Where's you're masternode? Until you've held 1000 Dash from before the top of the 2017 highs through the bottom of the 2018 lows until this present day, you have no right to call me a coward. None at all. Taking liberties that are not permitted is also the sign of an aggressive, agenda-driven individual, so I thank you for that 'No-vote solidifying' evidence.

>Your fears that other MNOs would dare to look at proposals costing less.

I've never expressed such a fear. You must have a list of things you have to run down and that you're prepared to argue. That is absolutely pointless so I won't be participating if you aren't actually going to read and respond to my arguments.

>I'm more than happy to explore the idea that proposals could cost more than 5 dash, I've never said otherwise.

Of course! You're so happy to discuss this CHANGE. But when asked to JUSTIFY WHY you want this change in the first place, you are much cooler and more lukewarm. This is also shill-like behavior. Once you get close to the breadcrumbs they want you to eat, they light up like a christmas tree! "You're getting warmer!!"

But when you ask them the hard questions, the ones that could possibly expose their motives, they pretend like they didn't hear you. I know everything in the proposal is about 'price discovery'. That's because you never even bothered with 'THE WHY'.

Man, you're being a dick.

"Furthermore, you're wrong again, Indonesia is ALSO serviced under the DashNext proposal. You're going to counter with your 'direct' garbage again, "

So just to prod your poor memory, it was me that originally said "direct proposal" - go ahead, re-read what was said - and you came back with "Dash Next", which in fact is not a direct proposal by and from the Philippines.

This is a proposal regarding fees. If your definition of "far and wide" is about app downloads then it is, in fact, YOU that is off-topic.

And finally, I'm gong to end this right now. Frankly, I don't care what you say anymore, you can talk to yourself. I don't know or care what other people think about your remarks, but I'm going to put you straight on one thing. You can cut-and-paste about the Philippines all you like but I happen to know a thing or two about this country. It wasn't some idle throw away comment. You know dick shit about the Philippines so don't even bother.

Now go ahead, have the last comment like I know you want. Go praise yourself for being so god damn right. We'll see where it gets ya.

>Man, you're being a dick.

You think so? You're the one calling people who disagree with you a coward because they voted no. That sounds like being a dick way more than what I'm doing. I'm just asking you to justify why you want to rush through a large change like this. If that's being a dick to you, maybe you should grow thicker skin.

>So just to prod your poor memory, it was me that originally said "direct proposal"

Yeah but what does that mean? That's a meaningless phrase. The original question was whether or not Dash was being spread "far and wide", not whether or not "there were direct proposals". That's a false equivalence that you're trying to sneak past me and I won't allow it.

>and you came back with "Dash Next", which in fact is not a direct proposal by and from the Philippines.

What do you mean by "direct proposal by and from the Philippines"? The adoption that DashNext is garnering isn't on Mars, its in Thailand, its in Indonesia, and yes, its in the Philippines. Which means that Dash has "spread there, far and wide". There is NO meaning to the word "direct" here. You either have a proposal in the Philippines or you don't. And we DO.

>This is a proposal regarding fees.

Yeah so what the heck does "direct proposals in the Philippines" have to do with anything? There isn't a lack of proposals in the Philippines because of the 5 Dash fee, so I fiercely return to you your comment about "being off-topic".

You responded with a non-sequitur in the first place and now you wish to declare my response as off-topic? Preposterous. The question is, is the 5 Dash proposal fee affecting proposals and the spread of Dash negatively. THE ANSWER IS NO, STOP LYING!

>And finally, I'm gong to end this right now.

Good decision. Honestly, if I were you I couldn't take losing $1000 USD and getting my ass kicked this badly in the same day either.

>You know dick shit about the Philippines so don't even bother.

I'm glad you finally found your spine! You've grown a pair in this comment and almost sound like a man, GOOD FOR YOU! Unfortunately, you grew them two weeks too late.

If you grew this set before you came up with this hare-brained idea, you'd still have 5 Dash and a new set of balls. Too bad. It was your original cowardice and lack of faith in the DAO that prompted this proposal in the first place, so its fitting that you're now leaving the debate in this fashion, though it doesn't quite jibe with your new-found 'masculinity'.

The fact is, I never claimed to know much of anything about the Philippines, so you're again beating your chest against a strawman. All I said is that you're wrong about us not having any proposals in that country, and I was correct. Your emotional attacks cannot distract from that fact.

>Now go ahead, have the last comment like I know you want.

Thank you for conceding to me the last word, I will not disappoint!

> Go praise yourself for being so god damn right. We'll see where it gets ya.

You know, I really don't like (excessive) self-praise. It blinds you and prevents growth. I only 'toot my own horn' to prevent weasely, slimely snake-like shills and infiltrators from capturing the narrative.

Otherwise I could care less about "being right" or even "winning" the argument. It just so happens that this attitude is perfect for detecting fake people, irrational rationales and shills. Its too bad you came up with this idea, hopefully you enjoy your time in the Philippines!

I believe the proposal fee was initially introduced to prevent proposal spam. It's been very successful at that, but now it's acting as a barrier to entry. For this reason I support lowering the proposal fee. However, I don't see the value in a variable fee.

A fixed price is okay in the short term when you know it is the correct price. But dash has never tried to find the market price, it's real worth. At the moment it's a bunch of MNOs putting their finger in the air and taking a guess which way the wind is blowing.

Ah ok so the PO can pay more Dash to boost their proposal (higher in the list). Interesting idea, I quite like the market dynamics involved in it. I'd like to see it in action, I'll support this proposal.

Yes, thank you.

Response to DashQueenApp:

"His mind is so all over the place that to attempt to unpack his bullshit further would likely cause my head to explode."

I accept and thank you for this your mea culpa. It was a good debate.

If this was a simple lowering of the fee, I would be for it. But this seems like it might eat up valuable DCG time which I think it is much more important that it be spent elsewhere.

Put in a proposal to lower the fee to a lower amount of Dash and I'm a yes.

I want to say for the record, I'm voting yes. However I would prefer an implementation that is a simple lowering of the fee to 1-2 dash.

*Please note:* My posts on dash forum are being removed. Someone doesn't like me pointing out decred's $111M treasury.

Responding to DashQueenApp from reddit (I'm banned on r/dashpay):

Response to DashQueenApp:

"Preemptively lower" refers to the fact that 5 Dash is not that expensive right now and if we arbitrarily lower the fee now, we run the risk of encouraging both spam and infiltration. However, the "preemptive" does acknowledge that you have a point and that eventually the 5 Dash might serve as an unacceptable barrier to entry if the price were to rise much higher. Strange that you couldn't see that I was basically agreeing with you there...

"Infiltration barrier" - You think its the role of my brain? Well its true, we're supposed to read and use our heads to vote for proposals. But I never said we weren't. All I said is that the 5 Dash fee makes it harder for infiltrators to pass proposals, and this is true. This makes it easier for MNOs to do their job in a sea of proposals. Raising capital to submit a proposal, coming up with a solution they can execute on, building reputation with the network, mind reading MNOs...except for the very last one, YES!

POs are SUPPOSED to raise capital just like you would in the business world. The amount to be raised should scale with their efforts and thus the size of the network itself, that way our proposals GROW WITH US. There are no "DAO charities" for VC. You raise capital, you get your investment AND YOU PROVIDE A RETURN. The DAO doesn't even require you provide a return on your proposal, nor sufficient capital to even get started, just that you try and that you raise 5 Dash as PROOF you won't waste our time. Other coins don't have this and they ALL WASTED THEIR TIME these last few years chasing and fighting battles THAT DIDN'T MATTER.

In exchange for potentially getting funds, you have to raise capital and convince the MNOs that your proposal is worth it. Your emotional screeching aside, this is A GOOD THING AND ITS WHAT WE WANT. They don't have to "read the minds of MNOs", how about not submitting a proposal with only 4 days of review time before a cycle comes to an end? You can be in preproposal mode for months, yet you guys only left this up for discussion for a very short period of time, then you cynically use that against the MNOs just because nobody considers this proposal worthy. That's not very nice.

What you call "enshrining the dash insiders" I call "providing ROI". Masternode owners TOOK RISKS. There was NO GUARANTEE that Dash would turn out this well and grow this much. In 2017, haing 20-30k transactions a day with the vast bulk of those being commerical payments was LIKE A DREAM.But now, Dash has nearly 3x as many as BTC. A study showed that roughly only 2% of BTC's transactions are actually for payments ~6k/day, while Dash sees 17k per day. Or look to bitpay data, where BTC does 85,000 commercial payments a month, while Dash does *500,0000*. That is MASSIVE SUCCESS that DESERVES TO BE FINANCIALLY REMUNERATED.

Your angst is basically someone without a masternode bitching because they're not getting the rewards. MNOs don't owe you anything. We took risks and sifted through the bullshit the same as you have to and for you to begrudge our success by claiming that us doing our jobs is "enshrining Dash insiders", as if that's a bad thing, indicates you have several severe misunderstandings of how this is supposed to work. Just like you do not understand how the proposal fee should (AND DOES) work.

By "benefits to the network", the five Dash proposal fee has been amazing. Spam resistance and infiltration resistance are REALLY IMPORTANT and I feel like you're not giving them their proper due. You are just hand waving away the fact that spammers and scammers, BOTH OF WHOM WE'VE DEALT WITH IN QUANTITY IN THE PAST, have to pay a lot of money to effect their plans. The MNOs don't benefit from the 5 Dash proposal fee, so your anger directed towards us is, like this proposal, misapplied and misdirected.

"TRANSLATED - "rich people good" "insiders good""

Proper, non-asshole, non-cynical, non-agenda-based translation: "Dash community members in good-standing good", "Rando emotional terrorists with no track record or network history but posting loud screechings on reddit bad".

It is NOT elitist. Your mentality is ANTI-INTELLECTUAL. MNOs are, despite our obvious and repeated shortcomings (which is natural in uncharted territory, recovery time, not perfection is the stat to optimize here), THE MOST INTELLIGENT INVESTORS IN CRYPTO. Dash is the best cryptocurrency and its NOT BY ACCIDENT. It is CRITICAL that we REWARD good behavior (like MNOs and 5 Dash proposal fee which has protected us from spam) while PUNISHING BAD BEHAVIOR (like yours, where you make unsubstantiated, emotionally-charged but incorrect claims like "rich-people good". Don't worry, that's what I'm here for).

Dash is the coin that cares about the poor and underpriviledged THE MOST. That's why we can't allow your inane ramblings to disrupt our anti-spam protection, which allows us to easily and routinely fund proposals all over the globe without having to worry if they're spammers/scammers or not. Once again, you completely ignore this which shows you are either not very smart, or you have a negative agenda. Which?

"If you want people to build reputation then they would be best to submit a small proposal and deliver on that."

This is another example of the irrational and incorrect conclusions you ROUTINELY draw in both your posts and your screeds on reddit. If I as a MNO want people to build reputation, then they had best DO THAT. MNOs ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS WITH THE MOST SKIN IN THE GAME in Dash. **What we say goes.** I'm sorry if you don't like that, but get used to it because its not going to change. If that's still unacceptable to you, there's the door.

Posting a proposal is the MOST TRUSTFUL thing you can do in the community. It requries the MNOs to trust that you're not a scammer or bad actor. Which means its ripe for abuse which would make the MNOs skittish about supporting proposals from anyone. Having them do OTHER THINGS to build reputation like posting routinely, unpaid work (which other coins have lots of people wasting their time doing--I say waste since they don't have a way to direct community action through goverannce like Dash does) and the like are all good ways to build reputation WITHOUT REQUIRING ANY TRUST.

This is something else you're just IGNORING. You're basically strawmanning and thus gaslighting the whole community by aggressively and irrationally assuming that the only way to build reputation in the network is the most dangerous and trustful way (i.e. a proposal) even though there's PLENTY OF WAYS to build rep without doing that. That is a disingenuous argument. You should be more careful, you've spent months trying to build your reputation on reddit, I'd hate to see you throw it away so casually over such a silly thing as this. Is this really the hill you want to die on?

"Joining the discord and acting like the people on there are so smart and important when they are nobodies."

I haven't been on discord in ages. In fact, I believe the community would be best served if we completely abandoned discord, both groups. What does it look like when a "decentralized" coin with privacy initiatives relies on a centralized, spy-ware service for the majority of its sensitive communications? I don't participate there for that reason among others, so you're preaching to the choir here.

Actions should speak louder than club membership, yet your actions have been to deny the real success that we've seen and shown. Why is that? Your actions are speaking very loudly here. You're completely IGNORING the benefit that the 5 Dash proposal fee affords us. Global decentralized projects can't succeed if its members are acting irrationally like that. Do you not understand that?

"This is as close to Orwellian doublethink as you can get. No, proposals are NOT scaling. "

You're wrong. You must not have been in the network very long. Our proposals are much larger, and have a bigger reach now than ever before. Go through DashCentral's history. You will see you are wrong and I am correct.

"It is pushing out people who aren't rich"

Who is being pushed out? I haven't seen any complaints from POs not able to post a proposal due to this fee. You are making unsubstantiated claims and hiding behind emotionally charged language to throw your readers off-guard.

"Woah, this guy is pretty pissed, so whatever he's pissed about must be TRUE!"

Its not. This is emotion without rationale, which means its a child's temper tantrum.

"2 bullet points would lay out a reason WHY we should put up with this. "

Put up with WHAT?? Just what are you alleging we are suffering from having 5 Dash as a proposal fee? This is concern trolling. You have no real damage received from this, only speculation.

"Your use of full caps to highlight especially egregious logic pisses me the fuck off."

Good, you should be pissed off. If you're not smart enough to explain why my logic is wrong, then it pissing you off means that it has the intended effect and I'm most likely correct. So thank you for that little anecdotal evidence. Those who are wrong almost always get angry before seeing the light, keep going you're almost there...

"What the actual fuck are you talking about."

Read all the previous proposals over the last 5-6 years, now add into that all the SPAM AND INFILTRATION ATTEMPTS that would've happened (and the confusion and defunding that would've resulted) without the 5 Dash fee.

"Oh look! Now everyone can submit proposals! We're in utopia now! My one and only goal to make proposals open for everyone has succeeded!!!! Oh shit, there's like 30 spam proposals....That MNOs have to all read and judge....Ah well I'm not a MNO SO I DON'T GIVE A DAMN!"

There is no "sea of proposals", you would sort them by the proposal fee in descending order.

The sad part is, you actually don't know your worth, not just you but all the No voters. This is idea that all proposals will be 1 dash is completely unfounded.

Are you kidding? We had several months last year with **19** proposals that passed, one month I think 26 in total were considered (outside the spam). Who cares about "sorting"? The fact is that there are a lot of proposals to go over, artificially increasing that number by incentivizing spammers and infiltrators is bad m'kay (the former can be safely ignored, but the latter cannot and their proposals need scrutiny to determine if they're a scam or not).

"This is idea that all proposals will be 1 dash is completely unfounded."

Who cares? Strawman? I never cared about the possibility that the fee will be 1 Dash. If the price goes high enough I don't mind lowering it to 1 Dash, .5 Dash or whatever is feasible while still keeping this effect. Once again, the sad part is that you're not even reading and understanding my arguments, you're just responding to predetermined arguments with predetermined counterpoints, which is evidence that your intentions, and this proposal, are not honest or genuine in good faith.

There were some months in 2018 where there were over 50 active proposals at a time.

In any one month, how many were new opposed to those that were rolled over from previous months?

I dont have those numbers off hand, but most proposals run for 1-3 months at a time, so it would have been somewhere in the ballpark of 20 "new" proposals/month at that time

Thank you for this historical data. I definitely wasn't watching the count closely then.

Maybe instead of being so angry, you should learn what you're talking about first so your anger doesn't get you called irrational and unintelligent. You're literally ignoring everything that's happened in the last 5 years. You're ironically THE BEST EXAMPLE of why "newbies" shoulldn't just be allowed to run rough like a bull in a china shop.

You're new to the network at least under this handle and you all of the sudden think you know everything about how to run the show. Even though your DashQueenApp never took off and never found traction in the network. Doesn't this bother you? That you, an unsuccessful entrant into the community who failed to get their app any traction, are now sniping at and spitefully attacking those who HAVE recieved funding (by attempting to remove THEIR protection from spam and infiltrator proposals) is the ultimate irony in this conversation, and I thank you for providing this afternoon's laughter for me.

"At points during that period the proposal fee in dollar terms is less than now."

Do you not understand my argument? Its not about fixed dollar amounts, its about SCALING THE COST OF PROPOSALS to the size of the network. Requiring that it be Dash means only Dash holders will be likely to propose one, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANT. We don't want people from other coins like nano, monero and BCH who are ALL COLLUDING TOGETHER TO DEFEAT US (notice how nano was allowed to shill on r/cc for so long. Its because they made a deal with monero to serve as a deflection shield --so people would stop calling monero a shitcoin there) making proposals, you should know better but I doubt you've even thought this through. You're just emotionally acting out. Its ok, you will tire eventually and come to your senses (hopefully).

"But now any proposal that brings less than $3k value to the network is priced out. "

Right, THAT'S A GOOD THING. Do you not know how GROWTH WORKS? The Dash network is worth $ 2.2 BILLION USD. Just what benefit do you think $3k or less could bring to the network?? Its possible, but that would be a form of "arrested development" This sounds like an "arrested Development attack", by pretending that we're not as large as we are, our enemies seek to con us into supporting proposals that might've grown us six years ago, but only because we were so small. Basically they want us to THINK AND ACT smaller than we are. That is disingenuous and WRONG. We are A LARGE COIN NOW, we don't need to worry about "pricing out people with less than $3k". Something is wrong with you.

"Are you suggesting that if the dash proopsal fee was 4 or 3 or 2 that the SOLD GRWOTH would not have happened? "

If you actually read the post you're screaming at like a little girl, you'd know that I'm not against lowering the proposal fee to another fixed value if the price of Dash grows too much from here. But yes, having a lower proposal fee back then would've increased the incentivization to infiltrate and spam. I mean, Dashcrypto left up 8-12 spam proposals with a time of 12-24 months, you can still see 6 of them on DashNexus in fact. He paid for each one, and even then the only way to make a large impact was to abuse the proposal length amount (24 months). Otherwise they'd be long gone. So this is very real and you just handwaving it away is not enough to be convincing I'm afraid.

"Your post is basically totally incoherent."

If my post is incoherent, then your response might as well be gibberish.

"Explain the rational."

I already did, do you have trouble reading? Well, its a lot so I can sympathize. Here it is again, the fixed 5 Dash proposal fee forces proposals to scale with the network, so that as the monetary investment into Dash grows, so too does the size of the proposal submitted to the DAO. This prevents us from falling victim to "arrested development" where we don't recognize our own growth, and continue to wallow around in our mom's basements unable to move forward with life. Avoiding that outcome is the rationale.

"Explain why people who aren't members of a small social circle shouldn't be permitted to participate in the dao treasury system."

Because the DAO treasury is not a tea party or a cook-out. Its a formal governance structure for a cryptocurrency worth $ 2 billion USD. It doesn't exist so you can feel "comfy" "settling in" in a community you weren't around in the beginning for. If you want to get in now you'll have to buy 1000 Dash just like the rest of us. Why should we lower the barrier to entry just because you're mad you didn't get in? I know you're talking about the proposal fee, but the entire thrust of your argument is based on this irrational angst against "incumbents" and "MNOs"....like we haven't been the faithful stewards of this network for the last 6+ years without your involvement.

"Oh my, we've really been messing around this whole time! We haven't had a SINGLE proposal from DashQueenApp!! Well shit, what are we gonna do now? I know, lets keep the proposal fee at 5 Dash....That'll show em!!! ....Somehow...." (???)

"BUT WE'RE NOT. "

Yes we are. There are more monthly proposals now than 4 years ago. They are getting paid more money now than 4 years ago (except the bull market peak). And we've been doing so consistently for months, YEARS NOW. You are objectively wrong.

"Because the fee is too high. "

Citation? You are assuming this, but you haven't shown one PO who is crying because they couldn't afford to submit a proposal. There has been no discussion of such except for this recent agenda push in the last couple days/weeks that you and your group have made.

"I'll write it so you can understand it. SPAM PROTECTION."

You seem to be misguided, IT IS YOU who constantly asked me for clarification and understanding, and still you don't get it. I think you would do well to be more humble. Humility saves you from looking like a dumb ass. Its too late for it this time, but remember that for next time.

"How many proposals are there this month? "

When all's said and done there should be sixteen proposals funded. My highest count for a month was 19. There are only 16 because some months proposals finish, there are one off proposals that increase the tally/decrease it when they go away, etc. But yes, 16 fully funded proposals splitting 1.2 million dollars FOR THIS MONTH ALONE is significant growth, you illiterate. Learn to read before attacking others, you not only sound irrational but stupid as well.

"The fee is pushing out too many potential projects/activities for funding. "

Who? Where? I've never seen anyone complain about this but you. And only recently with this agenda push.

"Don't act like you don't have time to read more proposals if you have the time to write out this poorly thought out "rich = good" treatise."

Your emotionally charged agenda spreading aside, I have NEVER complained about not having time to read proposals. I don't have that problem.

"It is absolutely obvious you've never submitted a proposal before. "

I guess I'm in good company? Most people haven't. I have helped many teams to submit their proposals though, so you're wrong, I know exactly what its like. I've spent a good deal of time over the last 4 years arguing for and against proposals that I felt were in line with my vision for Dash. So again, you're wrong on that account, I know exactly what its like. I don't mind risk at all. I have a MN, remember? Having a masternode might not be as "scary" (to you) as submitting a proposal to recieve free money from the DAO, but managing the risk of such a large investment, running a server with scheduled updates, downtime, server costs, voting, reading proposals, and dealing with absolute idiots who don't know how to properly argue on proposals and other things is also a very big time investment.

So now you're trying to basically gatekeep the Dash community, from a minority investment position. In other words, "If you have never submitted a proposal, you must not know about risk, sacrifice or hard work". Do me a favor, GO FUCK YOURSELF.

"Let me ask you. Does that sound like SPAM protection?"

Yes. That sounds EXACTLY like spam/infiltration protection. Everything you said has to be considered NOT JUST BY good actors, BUT BY BAD ONES TOO, you nitwit. You're completely ignoring half of the argument and acting like you said something. No wonder you don't have a masternode, you can't even cogently formulate and respond to a simple argument without completely ignoring THE MOST IMPORTANT HALF OF IT!

"It was hard to reply to your post in the end because it didn't flow coherently."

If this isn't the pot calling the kettle a cooking instrument!!!!!

"Anyway, I'm glad the community is doing something to address this."

Yes, I'm glad to see you've finally decided to "cash in" your limited social capital for something as frivolous and stupid as this. I will look forward to not having to read your attempts to manipulate our narrative anymore. Thanks for the argument!

I finally figured out the No voters; the proposal fee isn't going to MNOs pockets. If the proposal fees were collected and distributed to all MNOs, I think we'd be having a very different conversation. This, in my mind, highlights the hypocrisy among the No voters. The buy side (proposal owner) is offering their valuation and the sell side (MNOs) aren't getting paid to filter. So much for principles huh.

You're becoming increasingly aggressive and agitated with the reception to your message, which is a sign that your proposal is not a good idea for the network.

Voting No!

Reasoning:

The people who are pushing for a lower proposal fee are, imho, looking at the situation incorrectly. This appears to be a trend with these "change everything fast" proposals. Both user "DashQueenApp" and PO GrandMasterDash are under certain misunderstandings about the happening and functioning of the proposal fee.

Here is where I believe they miss the mark: The reason why you don't want a "dynamic" proposal fee or to (preemptively) lower the fee from 5 Dash (while 5 Dash is still not that much) is because it not only provides a "spam-barrier", but also because it provides an "infiltration-barrier" as well. This seems to have gone unrealized, but when you have a fixed, 5 Dash proposal fee the effect is that you basically price out all but two groups of people:

1. People for whom 5 Dash is both readily available and more or less confidently assumed to be refunded (due to good standing in the network) and thus those with long-term investment and thus (presumably) good intentions towards the network

2. Those who, while not long-term investors per se, may have recently decided that Dash is the coin for them, and thus obtaining 5 Dash and putting up a proposal would be perfectly acceptable (like ReadyRaider and WhiteBit as just two recent examples).

Everyone else is going to be priced out, and THAT'S GOOD! You want that! That means that, more or less, Dash's proposals **scale with the growth in the network**. That's a necessary sign of TRUE growth. We can't rely on the "scott farnsworths" and "local NH meetups" of the world forever. This is not 2016. Contrary to the rest of the complacent cryptocurrency communities, its important to realize that it is LATE in the race!

We do not have forever for cryptos to get it together! Banking and other centralized "solutions" are hot on the trails of satoshi, attempting to cut short the growth that cryptocurrencies are destined to see. BUT! We have not been resting on our laurels! We have 5-6 years of SOLID GROWTH to show for it, and this is WELL REFLECTED IN OUR PROPOSAL SYSTEM **PRECISELY** DUE TO THE 5 DASH FEE!

This fee means that as Dash sees more real adoption and thus price appreciation, that the size, scope and cost of our proposal ecosystem should rise on average. We should be paying more contractors, hiring more developers, pushing more ads in a tasteful yet informative manner (i.e. no Monero/nano-esque blanket spamming), having more transparency, more teams **ALIGNED WITH OUR VISION** (this part is important). If we didn't see that, you would kinda have to ask "what have you been doing all this time?"

A question other coins cannot really answer as they wait for adoption they cannot afford to make happen. But we don't have that problem, do we? We have the opposite, we have too many people vying for funding! Its to the point that some MNOs are having trouble keeping up! But still we perservere. Why?

Because THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PAID TO DO! So you see, the incentives must always align for you to get the ultimate, most-beneficial outcomes as often as possible, which is what we as a network want. Sure even if the proposals went to scammers, it would be not so bad (due to it just distributing the coin). But we should and have aimed higher. We want proposals that are not only "pro-Dash", but also "scaling with the size of our network".

Because that makes it harder and harder to pull off a scam. Look at KuvaCash! They had to really try to get that scam through! They had to really sweeten the pot, attack DCG, they really went all out and full-bore! Why? Because that's what's required now. If you don't do that, you run the risk OF WASTING 5 DASH, WHICH IS A LOT OF MONEY AND **A REQUIREMENT** TO POST A PROPOSAL. That means, to be a scammer, it gets more and more expensive as the network grows.

That's what we want. Which isn't to say that we should NEVER lower the fee. If Dash appreciates significantly from here, lowering it to some more reasonable (but still FIXED like now) level will still provide the same effect. But we should realize that we have this defensive weapon at our disposal, indeed it has been protecting us from scam proposals for years. All of the people who want to "make that easier" should think it through some more.

My .02c

If the proposal fee had been 1 Dash from the beginning, would you now be in favor of upping it to 5 Dash?
Are you in favor of making it even higher than 5 Dash now?

I think you're asking the wrong questions. All of your questions are focused on CHANGE. Change from 1 to 5, change from 5 to dynamic, change from 5 to higher than that...

You are deliberately skipping the first (and most important) step of JUSTIFICATION. You are asking a loaded question therefore. The equivalent of making a decision proposal,

"How much should we arbitrarily limit the number of masternodes to?"

or

"How much should we increase the inflation rate of Dash by?"

Both of these questions beg the question (the proper definition) and ASSUME that such a change is warranted, wanted and justified.

Dash has a limited supply as a social contract, so assuming that that has been abrogated with no evidence is a sign of acting in bad faith.

The same with the game theory behind the number of masternodes which are not particularly limited or fixed. This is due to "magic numbers" needing to be avoided as much as possible, **BUT NO MORE**--such as the 5 Dash proposal fee.

In short, your questions are illegitimate. The 5 Dash proposal fee works and has been working. Aside from you and "DashQueenApp" there is no clamoring of smaller proposals having trouble affording the fee. And even if you could find such a group, DashBoost is still a less drastic, much easier to implement option.

Ignoring this option in favor of the most drastic, dramatic, unjustified change you can think of should be interpreted as an attack by an infiltrated masternode owner and dealt with as such.

Exactly this. MNOs don't know their worth. It could be that proposala are worth more than 5 dash, I'd certainly like to explore that possibility further down the line.

Keep telling yourself that, we'll see where it gets ya.

There are people here wondering why voting is so low. You only have to look at the naysayers here and to see why. There are too few masternode owners to make this work effectively. The few that do vote, the old guard, are very effective at blocking progress. The proposal fee is akin to bitcoin's block size debate. Yes, you have effectively taken the role of Blockstream.

We can ride this to the ground now, I actually don't give a shit anymore.

Those two examples you gave went through already established channels, they didn't just stumble upon dash and randomly post.

Let's talk about Ryan's reward re-allocation, how well did that work out? I mean, come on, they paid 5 dash and it came from your much loved DCG, must of been a good proposal, right? What is the masternode count now? I'll get my popcorn while I wait for the excuses.

No no, sorry, you're right, MNOs were quite able to give themselves a pay rise. Must not let that 5 dash proposal fee go to waste now.

That "infiltration filter" you imagine is you being scared that proposals might not actually be worth 5 dash. You have this unfounded fear that all proposals will be one dash, and more so, that your peers will not be as "smart" as you and they will vote for things that you don't like. To be honest, you have an extremely poor view of other people and I want no part of it.

I think the problem is that you have a conclusion and you worked backwards to get it. You have a concern that is not sourced or proven to be valid. I mean, look around you man, the DAO has been working effective **for years!**

Where have you been? We have more than a dozen hot proposals every month with 90+% treasury utilization rate that has earned us much adoption, with 140k active android wallet users in 30 days according to the most recent Quarterly call. We have several independent, free, open source, decentralized, permissionless wallets, lite wallets, android wallets, IOS wallets, all paid for via treasury proposals.

We have burgeoning teams around the globe being paid well every month to spread Dash adoption, and we've seen the results of this in many different countries. We have two proposals in Brazil now, one to expand our current influence in the development community. That proposal came from a trusted community member in good standing, so we can be certain of at least some good results.

This is the effect of our proposal fee and it has protected us well. Whether or not those two examples went through established channels is immaterial, in fact that's GREAT TOO! You're basically making my argument for me. THE SYSTEM WORKS!

What excuses? What problem? The reward re-allocation didn't pass, I was against both of them so it worked out swell for me! I feel great that those proposals didn't pass and I don't get your angst. But the point remains, the system WORKS. Proposals have to be really good to pass and just because you're DCG doesn't mean it will work either. AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO SEE!

Your judgment of my character is as unfounded and misguided as the rationale behind this proposal. As an example, I clearly didn't express ANY FEAR of Dash proposals being "1 Dash". Quite the opposite in fact, at the end of my comment I explicitly left room for Dash's proposal fee to be dropped to "1 Dash" *or even lower if the community saw fit*. That proves you're not actually reading (or understanding?) my arguments.

Your ignorance is either wilfull or accidental. Either way, this proposal shouldn't pass. I don't view myself as particularly smart btw, and don't feel like I have any particularly large sway. The network votes for things I don't like all the time. I really hated when we voted for George Donnelly and Joel Valenzuela. Every month that they passed....I just didn't like it.

But I grinned and bore it, because I knew eventually the good proposals will rise to the top and the bad ones will drop off. And that's what we see happening. A big part of that is the 5 Dash proposal fee.

60% of that goes to DCG alone. As for working for years, now ranked #38. I remember the time people here would ridicule litecoin and monero, where are they now, for how long? Are you so sure your evidence is holding up?

For all your "evidence" there is absolutely nothing to compare it to because there have been almost no changes to the proposal system since it's inception. You're not wiling to try because you have no trust in how MNOs vote.

In your view the 5 dash fee is making proposal owners more conscientious, that's the buy side, now let's consider the sell side. Out of 1100 or so masternode owners, how many actually engage with proposal owners? The concept for this proposal sat on Dash Nexus / forum for 4 days and got just one comment before going live. Dash Nexus was a dash funded project because MNOs wanted prospective proposal owners to have an easy to use tool for laying out their concepts and submission. Here we are on DC because, as said earlier, the proposal system has barely changed. There is no balance between buyers and sellers of proposals, the price is fixed by MNOs, there is no engagement required and very few incentives.

But I give up anyway.

"60% of that goes to DCG alone. As for working for years"

So? DCG is the largest DAO among many, that isn't an argument against anything.

"As for working for years, now ranked #38."

Two things:

1. By POW mineable, we're number 10. Having fallen from number 9. Which has been our position FOR YEARS. So you're exaggerating . Dash isn't a token with an instantly printable supply, so its unfair to compare us to other coins that don't use POW mining. Of course you knew that.

2. Marketcap is a stupid way to rank coins because it doesn't take into account the difference in supply between coins. Monero, for example has twice the issued coins that Dash does, which means its marketcap is arbitrarily higher than Dash's by 2x. Your simplistic and naive rationale above doesn't take this into account, and risks getting the MNOs up in arms over nothing. Another thing you should know, but don't seem to care about...

"For all your "evidence" there is absolutely nothing to compare it to because there have been almost no changes to the proposal system since it's inception."

Wrong. Compare it to Decred. Compare it to Nano. Compare it to OTHER COINS with no goverance. You're "concerns" are overblown because you're wrestling some imaginary enemy that has a better goverance system than us, that only improving our own system would defeat. But look around colleague, there are NO ENEMIES such as that.

We have to focus our energies on the very REAL GROWTH we ARE SEEING, an not on phantoms that haunt you or worse, that you only pretend to be haunted by.

". Out of 1100 or so masternode owners, how many actually engage with proposal owners? "

Irrelevant question. As long as enough participate to prevent spam/bad proposals, which is exactly what we see, then the rest of the MNOs are free to do as they wish. That's the beauty of our system. Its flexible enough to still produce results even with only 1/4 of MNOs voting. You ignore this as well in your screed above.

" The concept for this proposal sat on Dash Nexus / forum for 4 days and got just one comment before going live. "

Its not a very good concept I will admit. There is nothing inspiring about it. Honestly, it reeks of cowardice to me. The kind of fear that people who don't take risks and who don't like others to do so either emit. Even though you have nothing to be afraid of judging by the years of success that our DAO has produced, you still are so "afraid" that you're willing to throw away 5 Dash on an unsubstantiated whim. Its good that you're giving up, you didn't start right.

"Dash Nexus was a dash funded project because MNOs wanted prospective proposal owners to have an easy to use tool for laying out their concepts and submission"

I like using both Dash Nexus AND Dash Central and I don't see how this line supports your assertions. There doesn't need to be a "fee economy" for proposals because that's not the purpose of the proposal fee. All of these "big change" proposals center around misunderstandings, cowardice and unsubstantiated fears. You cannot point to ONE SINGLE, ACTUAL negative outcome produced from the 5 Dash, while I have already cited many benefits.

In short, you lose.

"people who don't take risks " says the No voter.

Having a MN inherently requires taking large risks. Just because we don't want to take a risk with little benefit (removing the strong anti-spam/infiltration fee) doesn't mean we're strangers to taking risks. Your characterizations are straying further and further from the truth it seems...

As for this:

1. By POW mineable, we're number 10. Having fallen from number 9. Which has been our position FOR YEARS. So you're exaggerating . Dash isn't a token with an instantly printable supply, so its unfair to compare us to other coins that don't use POW mining. Of course you knew that.

The reason why the fact that NON-POW, NON-MINEABLE coins growing beyond is not concerning is simply because only POW coins (and some novelties with unique offerings) will survive the coming cryptocrush. As you can see with Nano, BCH, and monero, coins that haven't done their due dillegence will simply suffocate and die.

BCH has been shutting down critical services for months while pretending nothing is wrong. Same for monero and Nano. Both nano and monero are vulnerable to spam, dust and other various attacks due to their unique architecures.

Marketcap doesn't reflect this reality either. Only Dash has the decentralized governance and afforded treasury to be able to continue GROWING RAPIDLY even during bear market conditions (i.e. the last two years). While every other coin and community was LAMENTING the bear market, Dash kept its head down and was able to afford to KEEP WORKING.

Shutdown or not, Covid or not, WFM or not, GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OR NOT, doesn't matter. Bull market or bear, DASH CONTINUES GROWING. All of you screechers running around with your hair on fire are completely ignoring this and thus losing all of your credibility in this discussion. That's why you lost here today.

For smaller proposals, I recommend that we reinstitute DashBoost. It should be pretty easy to do and should easily get funded once it is made secure and less gameable than in the past. This way, the concerns about the lack of smaller proposals, which I do find to be justified imo, can be resolved without removing this very significant barrier.

This way, small proposals that don't work out, well the fallout will be limited to DashBoost. We'll still have our powerful anti-spam and pro-proposal-scaling fee. If you don't want to lose that 5 Dash, you have to think very hard about whether or not you should make a proposal. Even if you have a lot of money, no one every got rich by wasting it.

This 5 Dash fee makes sure even rich and powerful people have to think twice about just putting up any old proposal. It had better be good. And it had better be pro-Dash.

FYI, decred proposals cost 0.1 DCR to register and 0.1 DCR to submit:

https://docs.decred.org/governance/politeia/overview/

( $178 * 0.1 ) x 2 = $35.60

Decred's treasury is not built to be effective like Dash's. Decred's treasury doesn't vote as often, doesn't pay out until the work is complete and has a far smaller track record of success despite existing for nearly the same amount of time as Dash's DAO. I can see why you made this proposal, you don't really know how to properly compare things and thus your fears grew unobounded by rational thought or evidence.

Decred's treasury is $111M.

I didn't say decred's treasury is superior.

My posts on dash forum and dash nexus regarding decred's $111M treasury have been removed. Someone doesn't like me stating facts and providing links to prove it.

"Decred's treasury is $111M."

So? This is irrelevant to your case, and it makes my point. Decred's treasury is $111M because they don't pay out every month or burn the funds like we do. So what doesn't get spent gets "saved".

This has the unfortunate effect of accumulating capital without expending it, which is useless during an adoption race, which we're all currently in. You don't just need capital, you need to SPEND IT in exchange for adoption.

Instead of continuing to accumulate capital endlessly, we are about to EXPEND $1 million USD in a single month of directed, paid for adoption. That's why Dash's network, daily transactions, growth in Venezuela and all over the world dwarf decred's by several times. So using them as an example against us, both with their completely different incentives and their lackluster record compared to ours (but superior to most other coins) doesn't help your argument at all.

"I didn't say decred's treasury is superior."

I never said that you did say that. But your arguments don't take into account the lack of effectiveness decred's treasury has had, because the incentives in their network are different than ours. So there is EVEN LESS incentive to spam their network, since proposals don't get paid until they're completed. So if you don't do the job you DON'T GET ANYTHING.

Your argument didn't take these differences into account, so I explained why what your concerned about here can't really happen in decred. Their incentives already prevent it, regardless of what fee they charge for proposals.

I don't know anything about your posts being removed. I don't have any moderator powers in any of our communities; furthermore, I have very few friends in this community. Certainly none who would remove my opponents arguments (as if I'd ever allow such a thing).

But as a fellow victim of censorship having many posts hidden, removed and even being banned from r/dashpay for calling a lying infiltrator, flenst, a liar and infiltrator, I empathize with your struggle.

Hopefully you can get them reupped.

I can't make an exact like for like comparison because, a) there isn't one, and b) you've already pre-determined the outcome if this proposal passed, thus you are refusing to see what difference it would make.

Under this proposal, the same faces would be posting their proposals and the same MNOs would be voting them in. But this is not the real issue. Under the new scheme, there would be some adjustments (and not as major as some make out) and we might have to tweak some things down the line. But that's the natural trade-off we make with progress. Finding your real worth is not a step backwards. We are discovering what people are willing to pay for our attention. You seem to think we are only worth 1 dash.

"I can't make an exact like for like comparison because"

You don't need that, you only need to recognize that Decred's got completely different incentives than Dash. They benefit from it in reduced spam/infiltration regardless of the fee they charge, but they **ALSO PAY FOR IT** in reduced total proposals passed and even recieved. That's a real trade off that you need to account for in your arguments and I'm not seeing that.

"thus you are refusing to see what difference it would make."

Because you're refusing to source and justify WHY SUCH A DIFFERENCE is necessary in the first place. If you don't start from first principles, you're gonna have a bad time, every time.

"the same faces would be posting their proposals and the same MNOs would be voting them in."

That's an assumption. Sure at the *beginning* that would happen. But what about when the spam starts? What about when our enemies who've been chomping at the bit to disrupt our growth and network, what happens when you "inadvertently" allow them to spam both low quality spam proposals, AND high-quality SCAM proposals? ("Oopsie!") Who's going to be responsible when that happens? Certainly not you, you'll be long gone. But we'll be stuck with the dishes. Better to not and say we didn't.

"and we might have to tweak some things down the line"

Why not just leave it as is and NOT TWEAK ANYTHING? Anyone offering a massive change needs to JUSTIFY IT with equally strong evidence of both benefit with it and detriment without it. Both rationales are completely lacking in your effort.

"You seem to think we are only worth 1 dash."

Is it intended irony that you're making an argument about "valuing and paying for our attention" while deliberately ignoring and not paying attention to my arguments to do so? I have no idea why you're so fixated on this "1 dash" concept but I've never spoken for or against a particular value besides the current 5 Dash one. So the fact that you keep reaching for that strawman indicates to me that you're not arguing in good faith but are instead arguing from an AGENDA.

1000 spam proposals is a whole masternode's worth of scarcity created.

The same "high-quality scam proposals can't happen in the current system?

"a massive change" is an exaggeration.

Okay, not "1 dash", anything less than 5 dash, feel better now?

"1000 spam proposals is a whole masternode's worth of scarcity created."

I don't understand this response, can you explain please?

"The same "high-quality scam proposals can't happen in the current system?"

They can. Kuvacash proved that they can. But the whole point is that **ITS EXPENSIVE FOR THE SCAMMER**. Haven't you noticed? No Drako for a while. Why not? Because HIS SCAM WAS EXPOSED and he wasn't funded.

Which means HE LOST 5 DASH. He doesn't want to do that again so he **shut the hell up like I told him to!** THAT'S what you're not appreciating, the peace and quiet that allows us to consider proposals without annoying shills, scammers and hateful infiltrators who wish to disrupt our processes and prevent the DAO from being effective and defeating them in this, the cryptocurrency competition.

You are too NAIVE to be on the battlefield solider, you need to go your wet-behind-the-ears ass OFF my battlefield and get back into basic training camp.

""a massive change" is an exaggeration."

It is NOT an exaggeration. You not only want to lower the barrier to entry, but you want to make it dynamic! You want to introduce all manner of UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY (which is the most deadly enemy of a long-term, enterprise-level software project ((which Dash is)) for a number of reasons) for a SPECIOUS reason! A change that would limit or remove entirely the barrier to bad proposals entering and exhausting the DAO's limited mental resources. So not an exaggeration at all.

"Okay, not "1 dash", anything less than 5 dash, feel better now?"

You are not even attempting to understand my argument, which means you're arguing in bad faith. Further proof that this is a bad proposal, I thank you for that.

Under this proposal, if a "sea of proposals" comes in, every wasted proposal gets burned. You only need to have 1000 dash of rejected proposals to burn the equivilant of one masternode. (masternodes are the unit of account that makes dash significantly more scarce than, say, bitcoin).

When a proposal is successful, the dash is still burned but it re-enters the ecosystem because all proposal owners recoup it in their proposal. Burned one side and inflated the other.

I see. Interesting. I must admit that I did not "pick that up" on my first reading of your proposal, and I still don't fully understand the game theoretics of it, but from my cursory read, wasted proposals would be "good" because they would make Dash more scarce relative to BTC, and thus raise the ratio and value of Dash for all Dash holders. That about the gist of it?

Its interesting and I will admit I can't really argue against it in principle. But I am fundamentally against such a drastic change in any case, especially at least right now while the network is anticpating much new growth (and thus growing pains) from the release of Platform, and all the knock-on effects from the various ecosystem components that will be involved in that (like Mr. Andyfreer's incubator project).

Yes, that's right, but I'm not advocating for lots of spam just to increase scarcity. I'm just saying the spammers and the con artists are kind of shooting themselves in the foot.

Going forward, we might decide as a network to tweak the numbers a little. For example, maybe after 6 months we see that there is indeed too much spam. I don't expect that but let's just assume it. We could, for example, raise the minimum fee and remove the maximum fee (unlimited). It would require a separate proposal but I certainly think it's possible.

In any case, I fully expect that proposals will move to Dash Platform and usernames. In that scenario, we'd be socially scoring applicants and the proposal fee would be just one of several criteria.

Thanks for the explanation!

"This has the unfortunate effect of accumulating capital without expending it, which is useless during an adoption race, which we're all currently in. You don't just need capital, you need to SPEND IT in exchange for adoption. "

In other words, Dash's incentives are the BEST in crypto. Unlike Decred's. Although Decred's system disincentivizes spam and makes infiltration costly by default (nothing to show = no money, whereas in Dash we always pay out first if you pass, so there's more pressure in Dash), it also makes **capital expenditure difficult** by default as a side effect.

I.e. the pressure in Decred is to STORE and ACCUMULATE capital. What doesn't get spent gets saved. If you don't do the work, you don't get paid. These sound like good ideas until you have something like Dash to compare it to. Dash has had far more numerous and effective proposals than Decred with much more global effect. Decred and Dash have both been funding LATAM teams since 2018 as an example.

But as recently admitted in a recent politea posting, Decred's LATAM efforts, specifically in Venezuela, have failed to generate any significant adoption. People have been paid for content produced and meetups, but nothing significant has come in that time. Why not?

Imo, its because the incentives are wrong in Decred. In Decred, there's a lot of risk for a PO, a lot more than Dash (which makes this entire thread ironic btw). Because they have to wait until success is acheived to receive payment, there's a lot of risk that failure will result in wasted time and effort for POs while not greatly harming the Decred DAO.

The power imbalance inherent in this transaction (between Decred's DAO and potential POs) disincentivizes proposals AT ALL. Imagine if all the idiots who wanted to defund Venezuelan proposals had the fact that you can't get paid until the job is done on their side. There would NEVER be any funding or teams in Venezuela again. Just like Decred. What's more, Decred has an order of magnitude fewer proposals than Dash has had (last I checked). This is the reason why.

Dash on the other had, does it right. We incentivize risk, VC-ism and entrepreneurship by promising and delivering payment-on-passing, or PoP. With PoP, proposal owners can be sure that if they pass, they get paid. Which incentivizes them to WORK. And work HARD! The teams in Venezuela have worked the HARDEST and gotten so many results. There are now TWELVE different delivery services exclusively accepting Dash for payments in Venezuela, as just one example.

Dash is the coin that is most dynamic and adaptable. The entire global economy was upended. "Businesses" have now become less relevant and PEOPLE and p2p are becoming more and more important. And Dash **didn't miss a beat**. Coins like BCH are still trying the old way of "getting businesses to accept us door-to-door".

But they're too slow to be used for things like delivery services (that don't want 0conf). In other words, the needs of the hour are easily able to be serviced and handled by Dash, garnering us much adoption, while other coins have to sheepishly talk as if its still 2014 and pretend nothing's changed. "We're still early in the game." They say.

They that because they can't adapt like we can. They say that because they can't (buy) adopt(ion) like we can. Neither can Decred. The incentives and the way they're set up is why. The proposal fee being so high **IS THE PRICE WE PAY TO INCENTIVIZE THIS ENTREPRENEURSHIP WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING MNO'S LIMITED ATTENTION.**

I think its worth it.

I like the creativeness of this idea, but in the end I see the following problems.
1. This creates a fee market in the DAO, I am uncomfortable with that as it gives an advantage to the rich and OGs, which is the problem we are actually trying to solve for.
2. Reducing the fee to 1 DASH is a trivial change, one which the devs can manage while busy with important stuff, this change is technically much more challenging and could have implications on down steam infrastructure.
3. Speaking of which, DC and Nexus would need to update their portals to display the proposal fee and allow sorting/filtering on it, otherwise it is pointless, since neither is well maintained, I wouldn't count on it. DMT would also need similar changes.
I am still in support of this solution https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-reduce-the-proposal-fee-to-1-dash.51329/#post-225480 it is simple, elegant, manageable and interoperable. It solves the problem we have.

The problem is not the fee, it's the price discovery. Setting the fee to 1 is just as arbitrary as 5.

Dash Nexus already lets you sort proposals by date, price, votes and comments. Do you honestly believe "fee paid" is going to eat up that much resource? From memory, Dash Nexus was not developed by DCG. DMT also had it's own separate proposals, and the dev has already said he's got plans to update it.

As for giving advantage to the rich, it's a relative term. Right now, the majority of salaries are paid to repeat proposal owners. There are very few newcomers.

I hope you can keep an open mind about this. In time, the fee paid is one of many criteria we can apply to the system. It is not so much a "fee market" but the possibility of a socially scored market.

It doesn't seem to me that the price discovery aspect both from the PO's side and voter's side is that strong. The two points about "most people choose 1 Dash" and also "more required software changes" are both valid. To me the important outcome is more engagement so I supported this one but I think if you should consider simplifying it to a constant amount (even if it seems a bit arbitrary for now) to receive more support .

If being arbitrary is a main concern what about defining a ratio or daily emission rate, for example .001DE, which I think should be ~3 right now. So it can be something like Ceil(.001DE).

My thoughts : the 5 dash proposal fee is in place for both decision proposals and budget proposals.

We already have two decision proposals this month, indicating to me that with regards to decision proposals there is not a problem with the 5 dash proposal fee being somehow too high. By giving proposal owners the option to set the proposal fee from 1-5 Dash, we risk introducing a lot more decision proposals hitting the network that could be ill-prepared (ill-prepared in the sense that the feedback gathering phase could get skipped completely). So i don't see a need to lower the 5 dash proposal fee for decision proposals.

With regards to budget proposals i think we also need to keep the 5 Dash proposal fee in place, to avoid the risk of introducing a lot more low quality budget proposals to our network that could overburden masternode operators with their task of reading and analyzing budget proposals. Regardless of any filtering between 1-5 Dash proposal fee, i suspect most MNO's will want to read all budget proposals anyways.

For those budget proposals requesting low amounts of funding i would prefer a restart of DashBoost, but then without the exploit possiblity (which as i understand it, was the Achilles' heel of DashBoost and caused its defunding).

More proposals hitting the network is not a problem for those MNOs preferring a 5 dash fee, they would simply ignore any proposal paying less.

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think this is what would actually happen. In practice, I think all proposal owners would use the minimum 1 dash fee, because the risk of just the fee making or breaking the proposal is much less than the risk of losing the extra 4 dash.

The message to proposal owners is quite clear; the more you pay, the more attention you are likely to receive. Even if no one paid 5 dash, you would still be looking at a list in descending order of fees paid. In contrast, the current system had it’s fee set to an arbitrary number 6 or 7 years ago and it has never been proved or disproved as optimum.

This proposal aims to find the true value of proposals. The network will learn and it will be backed up with hard data. Let’s try not to be fearful or second guess what happens. MNOs remain in control and we make our voices heard at the ballot box.

Also consider, successful proposals produce net zero fees; that is to say, the fee is burned but then recouped by the proposal owner (re-enters the dash ecosystem). Failed proposals, however, have their fees burned and are never recovered, thus increasing scarcity.

Thereby causing lower voting participation on those proposals that have less proposal fee ? Not to mention MNO's possibly getting accused of not being open towards people seeking funding, due to all this selective filtering and tuning out of proposals with lower proposal fees.

I have difficulty seeing the improvement over our current 5 dash proposal fee, where all proposals are read and voted upon by participating MNO's and where a certain level of participation have been established.

Frankly i see more risks then advantages.

You can't have lower voting participation on something you would of never voted on in the first place. A 5 dash maximalist has automatically decided that anything less is useless and ill-conceived. What could possibly change their mind?

Personally, I've seen many comments about the treasury being "centralized" because people recognize dash is going to the same old faces.

If a 5 dash maximalist only filters on proposals with 5 dash proposal fee and there is a new trend developing that decision proposals get launched with 1 dash proposal fee, then that 5 dash maximalist would miss out on all the decision propsals.

It seems you accept that 5 dash is possibly too expensive and want to protect an unfounded assumption that any proposal fee less than 5 dash must be inferior.

You seem to of made up your mind so best we leave it there. Good luck.

No. I am simply pointing out the potential risks involved with introducing your 1-5 dash proposal fee. I am very much of the opinion that the 5 dash proposal fee should not be lowered right now. Instead of lowering the proposal fee, i think we should focus on restarting DashBoost in a safe and secure way.

There is no such thing as a decision proposal. Evan did this once and called it that as a token... it has no real meaning or effect within Dash.

Have you forgotten the decision proposal from DCG that changed our blockreward reallocation, shifting blockrewards from miners (-9%) to masternodes (+9%) ? Or those decision proposals that both DCG and some masternode operators launched with regards to flexibly extending the budget from 10% to 20% ? Those were all decision proposals.

There are a number of those 5 Dash decision proposals created over the years (not just by DCG), so claiming there is no such thing as a decision propsal is just plain wrong.

I'm obviously aware of all the people since Evan who've claimed that proposals are 'decision proposals' yes.

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-proposal-block-reward-reallocat

Of course a lot of those 5 dash decision proposals never passed (including those that focused on extending the budget from 10% to 20%) and were delisted. You wont find them on Dash Central or Dash Nexus anymore.

Please stop using the term decision proposal - I can make a 'levitation proposal' then when it passes I can jump up and down - does this mean Dash has levitation proposals?

Proposal system gives or doesn't give funding.

Some people can hotwire that to create a signal for themselves that they may or may not follow.

Not for anyone else in Dash or that has any real meaning.

Ergo there is no such thing as a decision proposal lets stop using the term and actually know what we're talking about

Why should i stop using the term 'decision proposal', when Ryan Taylor himself introduced that term and it has become a well known term among masternode operators ?

https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-proposal-block-reward-reallocat
''Decision Proposal: Block Reward Reallocation'' by Ryan Taylor.

Very strange reaction from you.

'Proposal system gives or doesn't give funding'

Decision proposals (like this one from GrandMasterDash) are not about seeking funding for their 5 dash proposal fee, they are about debating the topic itself and coming to a network consensus with regards to that topic.

You are obviously not here to give an opinion if this 5 dash proposal needs to be funded or not. You are here to debate the topic itself.

...unless it's from an existing PO, the decision relates to their own DFO, and they actually follow the 'decision'. But none of that is directly enforcable, only through future proposals could it perhaps be addressed.

That make perfect sense.

So only DCG should be creating decision proposals that affect the Dash software, since they are the DFO tasked with developing it. And that means that the MNO plan that competed with the DCG plan to alter the proposal system was illegitimate!

I think if the minimum proposal fee is 1 Dash then people will just use that (I would).

That being said, i've come round to the idea that we should lower proposal fees.

There's such a lack of competition in the governance system these days... In the bigger picture it doesn't matter what we fund that gets wasted, that Dash would be burned anyway and no system is perfect... what matter is what we fund **that adds value**... and I think lowering the bar of entry would increase that.

There may be an increase in spam, but I equally think there is also the possibility of finding talented people or simply more grassroots activity. We won't know straight away, this is a discovery process, but I think we will learn a lot from it.

Someone somewhere wants to dip their toe into the dash ecosystem. They have a twilight of an idea and just maybe we find ourselves a real gem. Look at Amanda's early work and see far she's come. Mark and others. Perhaps we forget how fearful it was for them at the start.

Yes agree. The gov system needs a lot more engagement and competition, $1000+ to apply for a grant is way too much if we want younger entrepreneurs / developers to risk asking such an esoteric process and unkown quantity as raising a Dash proposal.

Lower fee would create more proposals, proportionally more waste which would get the backs up of MNOs who think they're running some kind of corporation where everything needs to be perfect and not realizing that you as a network its worthwhile to be trying many things even things that fail to filter through to the ones that add value... in reality, we need engagement, competition, new people coming in with good ideas, it looks to me like this is reducing, why not open the gates and see what good ideas come through and not be OCD about the ones that fail.

Not sure I agree with this exact approach of the fee market as I mentioned...whats the value in spending more Dash than I need to on a proposal? Unless there are 100s of proposals, active MNOs will vote on what they think adds value. In fact i'd be less confident in someone who spent more than they needed but that's just me

Perhaps an increase in the number of proposals stimulates and engages more MNOs to vote, who knows! I imagine the same familiar faces will continue to submit their proposals and continue to be funded so I tend to think there's a bit too much speculation on what could go wrong.

The way I see, in time, the proposal system will be moved to Dash Platform and usernames. As this happens, the fee will become the least significant thing to consider because we'll also be socially scoring applicants e.g. person had X out of Y successful proposals. The proposal fee is just one metric we will be able to put our fingers on.

IMHO there is a coordinated effort between those calling for a "Dash Advisory Board" and those calling for a reduced proposal fee. If we reduce the proposal fee and end up having to wade through dozens of new proposals each month, of course it strengthens the case for an advisory board (which I oppose).

What we have right now is optimal. If we lower the proposal fee, we're just going to encourage more amateurs and more con artists to throw a hook into the water to try to snag some free Dash. The idea that some brilliant developer or entrepreneur is sitting on his hands and unable to help us because the big bad proposal fee is NONSENSE.

There is no connection with this proposal and the Dash Advisory Board, which I voted against.

This proposal is not dictating a lower fee, nor is it suggesting you wade through dozens of new proposals each month. Clearly you will not vote on them because you have pre-determined the outcome, that anything less than 5 dash is inherently of a lower quality.

You think the con artists will somehow change the outcome of their scams? Your magic 5 dash didn't stop TenX getting through.

I think we now see the true motives of 5 dash maximalists. They don't trust how their peer MNOs will vote and they choose to see more negatives than positives in other people.

You forget how people like Amanda and Mark came to be here. They started out perhaps a little nervous and unsure. They were amateur but full of adventure and excitement of what could be. They stumbled along the way but I'm happy to of witnessed their journey. Back in the day, 5 dash was nothing but these days it's a full month's income ( 0.169162 dash per day).

I'm disappointed, not for those that try and fail but for those intent on blocking progress.

"There is no better form of money that the pure virgin money that flows from the DAO, it is like heroin for junkies like Drako and Nathaniel and George and countless others."

xkcd 12/31/2020 (DashNation Discord, #masternodes channel)

* * *

Funds paid to proposal owners are GRANTS; we have no recourse if the PO fails to perform. It may takes many months to determine for sure if a PO is unable or unwilling to perform (provide value to the DAO in exchange for the funds they've received). I am not talking about anything hypothetical. We have wasted millions of dollars funding bad proposals.

As a first line of defense against bad proposals being funded, we need to keep the five Dash proposal fee. The great thing about denominating the proposal fee in Dash is that as Dash appreciates in value, more money is on the table and so the ante to play is raised as well.

What about potentially good proposals? Any potential PO who has a worthwhile idea should be able to raise the necessary funds to create a proposal by appealing to MNOs with the understanding that the proposal's "investors" will be paid back upon successful funding.

The system will continue to work for you personally as you would simply disregard all the proposals less than 5 dash.

Bad proposals being funded doesn't matter. What matter is the good proposals. The Dash couldn't be used for anything else. In rare cases a bad proposal could push out a good one, but that's a rare case. We need to be funding many things that can succeed or fail - we benefit from the successes and that's what matters, the failures are learning experiences for the collective memory of the MN network not financial loses within a corporation.

I remember the budget proposal of Charlie Shrem and his DashPay Debit cards that never materialized after getting funded by the DAO. I also remember the total breakdown in communication with Charlie Shrem. No to bad proposals.

"Bad proposals being funded doesn't matter."

I disagree. Bad proposals suck the life out of the project. They waste our precious time and attention. It's always the POs that return the least or even zero value to the DAO that demand the most attention.

And then there is the inevitably division and strife caused by bad proposals. The Kuvacash fiasco precipitated a civil war that caused a fork in the Discord. That division took many months to heal.

We should use the PO history and performance when deciding about the budget size. If you are new and no proposal history or activity you can ask very little or almost nothing. If you have completed a few projects successfully then maybe more. There should be always the question of why the proposal cannot be done independent of treasury as a profitable project. Sometime the answer is that it can be but it may take much longer time or is very difficult.

You consider money as the only valuable resource however qualified POs' time is even more important and scarcer resource for Dash. We shouldn't waste very limited human resource we have just in processes. Even receiving enough feedback on pre-proposals requires good amount of effort. Of course we wan high-quality proposals and we don't want money-grab proposals but right now the overall activity and engagement (particularly from MNOs) outside orgs is low.

Please note that this is not necessarily permanent. It can be reversed or updated as needed if we come to the conclusion that there are issues with this fee structure.

Nice observation about the Gov system being a grant system. Very few people understand this.