Very well exposed, shame that very few people answer to these questions lately. I've tried to know the opinion of some well known hivers without any result. A lot of people looks to other side or simply don't want to express their opinions.
Mine is that I'm afraid that the DAO won't last much if the proposals keep coming with those big salaries. Of course the work has to be paid but also the funds for the proposal system need to be sustainable, which is my main concern.
The DAO is a big amount, enough to cover those payments though, anyways i think that we could reformulate the proposal system.
Agree with you on that hivesigner and keychain are apps that do the same job one of them probably surplus.
I think some of them will answer...they just need time:)
Well one important fact that i didn’t mention in the post (didn’t really know where to fit that info) is that at the moment the DHF is growing at a bigger rate than at which the funds are being distributed. So as of now it is sustainable. But that doesn’t mean that some of that money might not being wasted...
How do you think it should be "reformulated"?
As it is now, one can only vote for the proposals not against them, I find pretty easy for a group of big stakeholders or a few whales to pass their own proposals without more consensus in the community. Thas makes for me the actual system problematic. Of course is what we have and is better than nothing, I mean that we need new proyects to be funded.
Another thing that cares me is that the return proposal of gtg can be actually unvoted by a whale and therefore lower the minimum that is required. The system can be easily tricked.
Is very soothing what you commented about that the DAO is growing in a bigger rate than the funds used for the proposals. I didn't know that, that's why I ask these questions about sustainability.
I totally agree that an option to vote against some proposals (even if we only had some limited amount of votes or they were of a lower power) is missing. But in fact such a change would prolly give even more power to those group of big stakeholders. The whole "general community" combined equals few whales.
A fixed threshold that needs to be met is a much more gamble option than a fluid Return Proposal and by far. You’re saying that we need more new projects to be funded yet you oppose the fact that the threshold for funding can be lowered in time of need. That to me screams inconsistency :D.
Well then at least part of your mind has been eased :P.
Isn't contradictory imo to make the proposals voting system more equal for everyone, I mean a method to difficult whales to pass whatever proposals they want and fund that new projects (maybe as you said voting against them could be also a problem for that idk). I see what you point with that threshold funding, that can be lowered in time of need, I guess that is a valid argument if we think in people acting with good intentions.
When I commented about the return proposal I didn't suggest a fixed limit, only critized that if it can be changed that way is easily manipulable, that seems logical, gives flexibility, yes but at that cost.
I think that you can see as well as many others that there are problems with the system of proposals, solutions aren't easy but what I'm suggesting is to make an open debate with the people who knows well the system and make it more resilient and more fair.
My opinion is that this target should be a priority to everyone because we saw what happened with JS overtaking steemit and if the system remains the same way, we obviously have the same weak points. That's why I see in this an absolute priority and is a issue that I see very few people caring about.