为什么不使用比例，要用固定的值呢？
I’m against it, it will completely bury LUNA.
I agree that making it too expensive to post a proposal will hurt future governance which is why I suggested to change the parameters. $5 face value is enough to prevent spam and still cheap enough to allow the community to participate
Here is an example, in the last 24 hours the cost to make a proposal went from $32.75 to $36.25. An increase of $3.50 in just one day.
If there is no plans to rebuild it then this would be fine but as we rebuild and increase the value this will become very prohibitive to future open governance of our token.
thank you sub-zero!
Voting always shows [decimalerror] invalid argument: undefined
Making a change of this nature while the governance process itself is crippled is problematic.
The vote for changing the parameters is only able to be voted on by validators. Effectively this is a closed group of entities raising the barrier to bring proposals before themselves. By going through the governance voting process it produces a veneer of legitimacy to the change, without a fair vote ever actually taking place.
The only changes to governance processes during this lockdown should be to enable safely emerging from governance lockdown - no other changes can be truly legitimate.
In the meantime, some spam is a minor inconvenience to bear.
1 Like
It is not “some” spam - there is a lot of spam which is prohibiting some serious and actionable proposals. Plus, most of the current proposals are text proposals with zero implementation (no github pull request for instance). If the aim is to just have a discussion without an actionable proposal, it can always be done for free on Agora.
Besides, even at ~$35, the deposit fee will be far less than other blockchains (Luna 2 for eg has a deposit fee of 512 Luna which at current market price is ~$3500).
1 Like
Yes, that’s “some” spam. It may be more than you like, but it’s still “some”.
I fully concede there are some moot or unimplementable proposals on there. They’re fundamentally irrelevant here though.
The point still stands - at the moment no vote can be considered legitimate due to the artificial restrictions on the ability to vote. Resolve that issue and this would probably be a fantastic idea.
You do understand the legitimacy issue of a group of entities excluding everyone else from participation, then voting to further restrict access to the process, don’t you? I’m sure they’re acting in good faith but the process itself is undermined by this problem.
1 Like
There are also scam websites being spammed in there. Not good at all.
2 Likes
We’re can you do that,can you elaborate ? Tks
the first proposal we need right now is to re enable staking. then the lunc community will be able to pass such proposals easily. currently most validators are supporters of v2, they might be apathy or anti-lunc, preventing proposals from passing
you’ve got to be kidding. On Juno you have to deposit 500 JUNO to create a proposal. There has to be enough of a risk for people to lose their coins in a no-with-veto outcome for people to not create shitty/spam proposals! (example: Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation)
1 Like
Ok, you are clearly not understanding what is happening here. They are talking about putting a price to MAKE a proposal, not to vote. Which is pretty standard for POS chains.
4 Likes
You are very correct, he believes that he can push TFL into bankruptcy so he can get the IP and Github access super cheap. Clearly he doesn’t understand what is going on.
I agree with making it more expensive to post a proposal. This makes total sense. I think that it needs to be adjustable and based off a set dollar amount, closer to $10 range perhaps. LUNC is to volitile to base off a number of tokens. A 10 point swing means it suddenly goes from $35.00 to $350.00 to post a proposed change. This will lead to a lack of governance.
Also if this is changed, the need to whitelist a proposal should be removed as well, so it shows up on the main page. Especially if its going to be a higher dollar amount.
1 Like
Looks like your proposal is going to succeed. The irony is that while the value is down this works as you imagined. However should LUNC have a future and increase in value this is going to make sure the “decentralized” power of LUNC is going to be even more centralized. We will not even be able to afford launching a proposal to adjust the proposal price again. Simply stupid for the community unless tied to a real world value. Excellent for the big guys should the coin recover. Irrelevant if it does not. Good idea but unfortunately not thought through. Have fun deleting my comment again.
If you were looking out for the coming governance attack - THIS is it.
Tell me, which POS chains can you make proposals on that don’t cost a deposit? $35 is nothing compared to all the ones I use. In my example of Juno, it currently costs $2500 USD to create a proposal on that chain. And Juno is at an all-time low right now, so the cost was previously much higher.
You are right Rosanne and what I wrote does not contradict what you say. I agree with you fully and would like to see a decent value for a proposal but I guess you do not appreciate my point so my apologies for not being able to explain, I will try again. The proposal is excellent in my view - until values rise. It works beautifully today while LUNC is worth nothing. So we argue over nothing. But let us assume LUNC gains in value and is suddenly worth $0.50 - at which point the suggested 345,000 luna to launch a proposal will cost $172,500. With such a rise effectively governance is centralised in the hands of those very few who can throw that kind of money at it. What if it goes to 1$ or more? The more successful LUNC (hopefully) is the more centralised and disfunctional for the community the launching of new proposals is to the point where nobody can. You may reach a point where not even a whale wants to throw millions of $$ at it. This proposal therefore without a mechanism to fix a value to something real becomes a governance attack should LUNC become a success. We are setting up the community to be shut out of launching future governance proposals.
Then when the price starts rising, an new proposal to reduce the minimum deposit can be made. No issues, seen that before too!