I get it. But proposals also now have an option to reduce pay. If there was some direction given, perhaps on a weekly basis, "Reduce pay by n % or risk being unfunded," that might help.
Is that out of the question?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Is there a mechanism in the blockchain for that or would they have to send it back, and then stakeholders make sure that it is being sent back? The latter seems possible and fair to me, but a bit of a pain.
While we're waiting for clear direction, I'll just drop mine from 130 HBD to 45 HBD.
Again, how is that done? I was asking because I want to learn.
It's a new feature for HF24:
https://gitlab.syncad.com/hive/hive/-/releases/v1.24.2
Seems potentially problematic in that if you reduce funding you can't increase it again if the price of HBD goes down. But it's a tool in the toolbox, might make sense in some instances.
If post hf25 this remains an issue we could introduce a change in hf26 to be able to reduce the proposal but also bring it back to it's "max" depending on HBD price.
But it goes against the initial idea of the feature where you want to create a proposal at a price and if the community feels like you're asking too much you can reduce it but not increase it again, so it could create a risk where you set 200 per day, then community makes you go to 100, you get voted and then you increase it back to 200.
I tend to agree that changing is not really the best way to go, and also not sure there is enough value in these abilities to justify additional complexity and code. Most of the time making a new proposal or sending some back should be good enough.
There's been a discussion in DHF forum in mattermost for weeks about potentially temporarily unvoting proposals due to high price of HBD. But it wasn't until today that HBD jumped suddenly. A weekly advisory basis isn't really possible as long as HBD price is so volatile. I certainly had no idea it would spike to $3 today.
From what I can see the option to reduce the pay is worse for proposals. As it is, they temporarily lose funding, but will be able to go back to full funding after they are voted back in.
If they lower their funding, and HBD went back to $1, I don't think they can raise the funding level back and would need to create and campaign for entirely new proposals to reach the same funding level. So I don't think that mechanism is that useful for the situation of fluctuating HBD. I believe it was mainly added as a method for bargaining between proposers and voters.
Another potential option would be for proposers to just temporarily redirect their funds to the hdbstabilizer, but some might not feel comfortable doing so, because they might feel they were overstepping the guidelines of their original proposal, unless they had put in such a clause when they originally made their proposal.
From the available options, it looked to me like a temporary unvote was the most reasonable choice.