I think the price increase you suggest is too much for the average user, and I think the system should work to incorporate proposals from the average user.
What if all proposals ran for a standard amount of time (maybe 30 days), after which they could be resubmitted if so desired?
At the very least, I suspect that proposers would take more time to consult with the community before making an expensive long term proposal, which also wouldn't be a bad thing.
I recently suggested a parallel system which may serve this purpose a little better. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in.
My first thought is that we could just create a community for HIPS and people could make suggested improvement ideas in that community. People can vote on the ideas via the regular mechanism, effectively rewarding proposers of new ideas. The purpose of the community would be to collect them in a nicely consolidated area.
The beauty of this approach, from my perspective, is that no new code has to be written...
You even add a kickstarter fund (which could act as a proposal) which is managed by a trusted committee of people, who could send smaller budgets to those most-wanted ideas and help to mature the idea or build a mvp.
Just an idea.
I also like that idea, and I thought along similar lines (not exactly a community though) before I wrote the post, but ultimately decided a longer voting period would be necessary as well as a central place designated by the blockchain. You or I could create a HIPS community, but it wouldn't be an official place for it. It would also give off the impression of centralization as it would be under the control of the community account.
I guess you could publish the posting key for the community account, but I don't know if that would accomplish what we want for a Decentralized feature proposal system.
Which leads me to a question that I've been meaning to write about: Why hasn't anybody made an anonymous account by publishing the private posting keys?
AFAIK, you can create a community where anyone can post, the community aspect just allows for moderation (e.g. removal of posts that aren't really related to the community topic). For a community of this sort, it would probably make sense to give the owner key to several people, just to ensure it's not lost.
Regarding your last question, someone did create an account of that sort, but I forget it's name. Edit: at least I think they did...
As far as the post voting time goes, I see this more as a "brainstorming" community than a formalized proposal structure. So there's no reason someone couldn't just create a new post to extend on the old one with new ideas about it, to allow for further voting.
I guess my question would be why wouldn't that also be a solution for the DHF proposals?
I'm not sure what you mean. How would a community handle DHF proposals?
Couldn't you just collect all of the same information in posts to a community and designate the results in that community to indicate the will of the stakeholders?
Well, you inspired me to create my first community:
https://hive.blog/trending/hive-102930
Gaaah, you beat me to it! That's ok. It's better to come from you than me anyway. I'm proud to have been the inspiration.
Let's see what kind of traction it gets.
If you'd like to be a moderator, let me know...
I'd be honored.
done
I do think many proposals could benefit from this.
I'm all for shorter "milestone" proposals. While I understand campaigning to raise yet another proposal is a hassle, for most founders/teams it's an integral part of life and I think if geared more towards milestones it will become easier for them to actually raise.