Recently there has been a lot of discussion related to spend proposals now that there are more going to the chain. So I wanted to start a discussion about how this should work going forward.
How was this previously done?
Previously prospective builders and contributors would go to the forums for a week and sometimes telegram rooms to gauge community interest then decide if they would go to the chain.
To share some of my thoughts, I think proposals should go straight to the chain after being posted on the forms.
My reason for this is very simple, if you look at the citadel and sg1 proposals, there was a lot of negative feedback on the forums, but if you look at the votes they passed. So it seems to me the only real way to understand consensus is to actually be on chain and just accept it if a proposal fails as the will of the chain.
This also means some decisions can be made in 1 week instead of a week forum discussion then also 1-2 weeks on chain. If a proposal fails, the proposer can either give up or try again after adjusting for feedback given via the forums during voting. It’s honestly not a big deal to try again and we should not view this as failure, we should view this as using the system as it was designed to be used. The previous way of approaching this results in what is sometimes less than 10 humans saying they don’t like something and being able to successfully stop things from moving to a vote.
Why do I think this is better than how things were done?
The loudest voices are often the most critical, admittedly at times that’s me but we have found when it’s not me others fill the void and do it. This is one of the most uninviting aspect of the Secret Network. People who are willing to dedicate dev/man hours to pushing things forward often walk away thinking it’s a terrible experience to get public funding and that’s a dangerous culture to continue contributing to while other sources of funding have their own issues/take longer. It also results in only older contributors being given chances on opportunities. We already have a mechanism for deciding if something passes or fails and seeing that from actual votes is, in my opinion, the only way we will know if something should happen. At the end of the day people need a place to voice their feedback, not a rout for who has the loudest voice being able to lobby people out of seeing what DPOS wants (on chain votes includes delegator voice via votes anyways).
How do you think spend proposals should be approached and what is your reasoning?
What is wrong with a proposal going to the chain while feedback is given and allowing a prop to fail if the will of the chain votes it down?
Thanks in advance