Initiative to Increase Luna Classic Proposal Deposit Amount From 0 to 200,000 $LUNC (v2)

Governance & Proposals
1

Summary
This is Part 2 of proposal 6082 & v2 of our initial discussions in regards to onboarding this change after taking in community feedback/developer feedback/validator feedback which we initially started to combat Scam proposals. The main reason for increasing the deposit amount is to significantly cut down on the amount of proposals which can be made on our chain. With proposal 6082 passing & increasing the voting requirement to 1,000,000 $LUNC we’ve seen a noticeable decrease in proposals entering voting period. We believe that by increasing the deposit amount as well to hit the deposit tab we can decrease the amount of scam/spam proposals entering our governance by a significant amount.

image
image1071×787 81.6 KB

Motivation
We’re motivated by the amount of individuals taken advantage of by scam proposals. We also see that there are way too many proposals coming out as of late & this will aid cutting down on spam.

Proposal
After extensive research regarding this topic & discussions with the L1 Task Force we’ve come to the realization that this is only able to be done hardcoded to our chain.
Reasons given for doing this below v
1.) Making it a gov parameter would lead to too much divergence from the upstream cosmos sdk repository.

2.) it is that it’s easier to deploy in the version that also will whitelist the Binance hot wallet.

(Therefore the Text Proposal & not a Parameter Change proposal).
We believe that 200,000 $LUNC is a fair amount that will not end ALL scam proposals but will considerably be able to cut down on the amount being put into governance & be fair to those seeking funding for their proposals at a low price.

NOTE : THIS MINIMUM DEPOSIT WILL SCALE BASED ON THE MINIMUM DEPOSIT REQUIRED FOR VOTING. THIS IS 20% OF THE 1,000,000 $LUNC REQUIRED TO ENTER VOTING PERIOD.

IF WE INCREASE OR DECREASE THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR VOTING PERIOD IT WILL STAY AS 20% OF WHATEVER AMOUNT THAT IS (example : 2,000,000 LUNC needed for voting passes, new minimum deposit will be 400,000 LUNC (20% of 2 million)

This will not affect a good actors ability to fund a proposal. This is a follow-up to proposal 6082 in which we proposed to increase the voting minimum from 345,000 LUNC to 1,000,000 LUNC & also signaled to increase the minimum deposit amount from 0 to 500,000 LUNC. It’s been 3 months since this proposal has been live to signal this amount & the community has come to a consensus that 200,000 $LUNC instead of 500,000 $LUNC is a more fair entry point for deposits.

Proposed by
Classy Crypto, Classy’s Sphere :crystal_ball: LUNC Validator / Proposer of 6082
LUNC Holders & Community Members
Contact:
@ClassyCrypto_ (Twitter)

2 Likes
2

20% rules sounds good.

But I think this is something which needs to be hardcoded and not something which can be changed in an existing parameters list.

3

Yes this is exactly what was outlined on this proposal. It’d be a hardcoded change (Not a parameter change)

1 Like
4

This isn’t a given - why are you mentioning it here as if it’s a done deal?

Yes it will. Scammers will gladly pay the extra LUNC if it means they get a chance at running whatever they’re trying to accomplish. Meanwhile, there are well-meaning community members living in impoverished nations who’ll be locked out of submitting proposals (or at least severely disadvantaged) by the price hike. All this proposal will achieve is cutting down on the amount of time validators have to sift through props… and it’s not like most of them participate in governance anyway.

Which ones? Props ought to be signed by individuals, not ambiguous and undefined groups.

It’s a definitive NO from me. :-1:

Shalom! :pray:

3 Likes
5

This is a very Eurocentric way of thinking, they’re are many people from developing countries who would like to participate on chain and with governance if this passes then you would be gate keeping impoverished people even more from this I’m not surprised at all a white man came up with this

4 Likes
6

The spirit of WEB3

스크린샷 2023-01-16 오후 12.48.50
스크린샷 2023-01-16 오후 12.48.501422×1000 98.4 KB

1 Like
7

Very good point you’re making, how would you see us solving it?

1 Like
8

A thorough answer has already been given here by @aeuser999 about the data, the problem and the possible solution:

9

Whereas I believe we need to increase the deposit amount to cut down on spam, wouldn’t we be better off to set the required amount of the deposit in LUNC to a dollar value? As the price of LUNC increases a 200,000 deposit eventually gets to the point where 99.9% of the people could never put forth a proposal. By setting to a fixed dollar we automatically adjust as the price of LUNC rises or falls. I might propose that we set the proposal deposit to be $50 USD worth of LUNC – low enough that someone with good intentions will still post but something that costs spammers some actual money.

3 Likes
10

Keep the current system

11

I used a proposal 3 months ago to get the attention of the community.

I could pay that amount with the support of my supporters and certainly share my opinion with many community members. Of course the proposal didn’t pass, but even that was a good experience.

No matter how good an idea is, it can’t come out into the world unless it’s shared with people. The most difficult situation is indifference rather than opposition.

Maybe we missed a good idea in the midst of a lot of spam proposals. You may need a way to control excessive spam.
However, large deposits create barriers of expression for people living in low-income countries. It’s against the spirit of WEB3.

Wouldn’t this amount have to be set fluidly and 1% of the cost of going to the vote be OK?

1% of the total cost could be spent on investment to make your voice heard. The cost is a minimum responsibility in my opinion, not expenditure.

And if that opinion reaches someone’s heart, the other 99% will be supported by the community.

1 Like