6-(E) - Misinterpretation of "bad" formulated proposals



  • For the ease-of-use each proposal should be formatted and structured in a similar way. For example in decred’s politea system they have to structure the proposal in the following order:

    1. What?
    2. Why?
    3. How?
    4. Who?
    5. When?


  • Currently hyperlinks are not supported in the proposal descriptions. When refering to an external document, it should be possible to direct potential voters directly to a document by its URL.



  • In another topic (Form for community proposal) I proposed to enter the proposal description on 5 separate tabs, along following categories (What, Why, How, Who, When). This will guide the proposer in a way to propose all the necessary data and should allow more characters to describe his proposal in a more precise way.

    Additionally, there should be the possibility to reference a document (e.g. a pdf-file) by an SHA-256 Hash. This document can contain an even more detailed description as solely possible with the 5 tabs entry form.

    I thought about the possibility to support hyperlinks as well, but now have my doubts in doing this. It would provide the proposer the possibility to change or delete the content of a provided hyperlink after the vote has been finished. So hyperlinks to other documents should only be given for informal purposes and shouldn’t contain any relevant data to describe the scope of the proposal.

    Here’s an example of the suggested proposal formular:
    CPF_02.jpg

    What is your opinion on the proposal form and how do you think should we handle given hyperlinks?
    Any other suggestions?


  • Team

    I applaud this initiative!

    However, and I’m a bit sorry to say this, at least for the next Particl Desktop release (2.4), we decided not to include Proposals in it (yet).

    The main reason for that was to cut some outstanding work so we could release faster. But there’s also the fact, that the Proposals weren’t used very much and when they were, the results weren’t really binding. In short: it was just a nice in-wallet poll feature for users.

    Now onto the better news! This all doesn’t mean we want to ditch all of this completely – on the contrary. We are looking at better solutions for the whole Proposal system, but the current decision is to leave them out until we have something really good and useful (not half-baked). We’ll definitely keep your input for the future design, I really like it!

    Also, somebody pointed us to Zcoin’s approach, which is a web-based system for crowdfunding of new features and community initiatives. This got me personally very excited – it’s open source, so we could use and adapt it for Particl – that would IMO be even nicer for the community as anybody could “put their money where their mouth is” and it has the potential to attract even more 3rd party developers.



  • @Allien
    Yeah, Zcoins approach is interesting and particularly easy to adopt, since open source (I havn’t read all the details though).
    I rather try to figure out a possible solution based on the overall particl user needs. E.g., there seems to be a reasonable demand for a grading curve which eliminates the voting power of large bag holders. How steep or flat this “grading curve” will have to be, is not yet defined, but should be possible to adjust by the community itself, by voting. Thus it would be a kind of closed loop, more or less a kind of a DAO (if I do have a correct understanding of this term). 😉

    I would love to see this kind of “online”-Voting to be implemented as a separate “Voting-Module”, which finaly every particl dApp could make use of, e.g. when it comes to online voting on the future slope of the “grading curve”. But even without “Voting-Module” you should be able to take part in online voting by an easy outgoing transaction from your balances address. Thus you wouldn’t have to rely on any third party, like github. Why not storing proposals similar to smsg-listings, or maybe even onchain?

    The Zcoin-approach I rather see as a form of “off-chain”-voting, which every particl dApp later voluntarily might choose by its own. You know what I mean?

    I could also imagine that “on-chain”-voting might decide on the rate of development reward taken from the overall block rewards, and maybe also on the allocation to certain proposals. Thus proposals would be less dependent on donations.


  • Team

    @Pancake yes, I think that having these two as separate solutions would be the best way to go forward.

    I don’t necessarily agree with the “voting power grading curve” (if I understand correctly what you mean by that). For me, big holder = louder voting voice is not a bad thing, since large holders effectively have more skin in the game.

    Btw the current Proposal in-wallet implementation is based on SMSG – nothing except for TXs is stored on blockchain (also the reason why it’s so lightweight!).


  • Community-active-members

    @Allien
    About grading curves: this idea was borne from discussing ways to prevent very large holders from overpowering everyone else by a mile.

    Sure it’s only fair to have the largest holders (=the ones with highest investment) have the biggest say. But if there’s a few entities that hold the majority of coins, at what point is it pointless for most holders to participate in voting?

    It’s a philosophical discussion, really: What do we consider democratic voting?

    But this is a discussion for another thread…


  • Team

    @Allien said in 6-(E) - Misinterpretation of "bad" formulated proposals:

    Also, somebody pointed us to Zcoin’s approach, which is a web-based system for crowdfunding of new features and community initiatives. This got me personally very excited – it’s open source, so we could use and adapt it for Particl – that would IMO be even nicer for the community as anybody could “put their money where their mouth is” and it has the potential to attract even more 3rd party developers.

    Yeah, I’m very much excited by this format as well. This proposal system is simple and easy to use which leads to more people using it. These off-chain governance tools are perfect for things like project/initiative proposals or “bounties”, like for example if you want to build a “dapp” or feature for Particl and want to get a certain number of coins for it. Kickstarter-like. This could lead to a lot of small projects being born.



  • I again summarized the points mentioned. I emphasized the need for a trustless long-time storage medium for each proposal. Thus I prefered to use the particl blockchain instead of any third party provider, as e.g. github.
    I will temporarily leave this topic up for discussion and will close then in a few days.


Log in to reply
 

Creative Commons (CC) 2020 - Particl Community | Not affiliated with Particl Foundation | Powered by NodeBB