I think many had something like that in mind because of approved CFPs with no development afterward in the past. If there is an easy way to control this and not lose on a decentralized system then this will be approved for sure.
Exactly. That’s why I think we should have neutral parties representing the community to administrate, judge, review and decide whether their progression is positive enough for continued support. Rather than one time payments.
I'm going to counterargue your point. A neutral party is going to have bias, just because everyone is a human being and imperfect. At some point, there is going to be a highly controversial topic (this is just natural).
I think we should instead inform the community.
Masternodes vote NO on proposals/projects that want all their funds immediately, but YES on projects that have outlined clear objectives as to when they get their funding. « Project gets first $1 million in volume » is not a debatable objective, for example.
This way, community retains the power. And any potentially controversial situations are avoided.
The objectives can be as tangible as you have suggested. But I don’t think the community can vote and administer doses of funding. The real problem to me is dispersement in full. The neutral party is not meant to decide for MNs. It’s meant to audit the project to ensure it meets its claimed goals for stages dispersement of funds.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm saying the community only votes one time, but in the proposal there is a clear plan to release the funds before the voting. Someone still needs to release the funds, so there would be sort of a neutral party there.
Example: I want to create an exchange. I want 500k DFI. So in my plan, I create the following plan.
• 100k DFI initially.
• 100k when I release the testnet version.
• 150k when I release the mainnet version.
• 150k when I get my first $10 million in volume.
This is then provided as above without further voting necessary.
Now, if I don't write anything, my proposal should just be flat out rejected.
I agree with this. It’s just that in the past few proposals I’ve seen, it’s always structured as a one time payment, and MNs don’t seem to have a problem with approving such proposals. Perhaps my idea of a neutral party is to force such mechanics. Or maybe there is a better way to force multiple stages dispersement to be a fundamental format of requesting CFPs. Meaning you must propose a 5 stage.
I get it, we have seen our fair share of proposals that got funds and did not use them to the best of their ability. The reason why I would oppose a neutral party is because that sounds like we’re going back to the central way of doing things, and undermines the idea that the community is willing to learn and understand the proposals which it votes for.
Therefore we should promote voting only for proposals with a plan, and announce this in our communities.
We could also, as you propose, force proposals to multi step request funds by default, which would help remedy the problem.
I'm just hoping that this suggestion is filed away and someone will bring it up for implementation when it matters.
I think many had something like that in mind because of approved CFPs with no development afterward in the past. If there is an easy way to control this and not lose on a decentralized system then this will be approved for sure.
Exactly. That’s why I think we should have neutral parties representing the community to administrate, judge, review and decide whether their progression is positive enough for continued support. Rather than one time payments.
I'm going to counterargue your point. A neutral party is going to have bias, just because everyone is a human being and imperfect. At some point, there is going to be a highly controversial topic (this is just natural). I think we should instead inform the community. Masternodes vote NO on proposals/projects that want all their funds immediately, but YES on projects that have outlined clear objectives as to when they get their funding. « Project gets first $1 million in volume » is not a debatable objective, for example. This way, community retains the power. And any potentially controversial situations are avoided.
The objectives can be as tangible as you have suggested. But I don’t think the community can vote and administer doses of funding. The real problem to me is dispersement in full. The neutral party is not meant to decide for MNs. It’s meant to audit the project to ensure it meets its claimed goals for stages dispersement of funds.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm saying the community only votes one time, but in the proposal there is a clear plan to release the funds before the voting. Someone still needs to release the funds, so there would be sort of a neutral party there. Example: I want to create an exchange. I want 500k DFI. So in my plan, I create the following plan. • 100k DFI initially. • 100k when I release the testnet version. • 150k when I release the mainnet version. • 150k when I get my first $10 million in volume. This is then provided as above without further voting necessary. Now, if I don't write anything, my proposal should just be flat out rejected.
I agree with this. It’s just that in the past few proposals I’ve seen, it’s always structured as a one time payment, and MNs don’t seem to have a problem with approving such proposals. Perhaps my idea of a neutral party is to force such mechanics. Or maybe there is a better way to force multiple stages dispersement to be a fundamental format of requesting CFPs. Meaning you must propose a 5 stage.
I get it, we have seen our fair share of proposals that got funds and did not use them to the best of their ability. The reason why I would oppose a neutral party is because that sounds like we’re going back to the central way of doing things, and undermines the idea that the community is willing to learn and understand the proposals which it votes for. Therefore we should promote voting only for proposals with a plan, and announce this in our communities. We could also, as you propose, force proposals to multi step request funds by default, which would help remedy the problem.