I'm not a fan of the fixed daily fee for unfunded proposals. YES if it would get funded you might get it back anyway by pricing it in. But we also know newer teams without a lot of support behind them 'automatically' will have to pay a higher price then if they somehow get a lot of support but just not enough for not making the return proposal. I don't think there should be a 'fee' for 'not making it'. I don't think we want to discourage newer teams who have to work harder than all the familiar names who will get funding easier. We want to encourage newer teams to add proposals, maybe not make it, learn from it, and make a better proposal next time. But we don't want them to not make that proposal and have that learning experience because they know they have to pay more than those who will make it from first attempt.
I do think that having a technical or otherwise frontend solution for proposals 'fall down below the fold' (visually less prominent in the proposal list) will help keep the DHF a clean experience.
In general my view on this is: let's not make Hive all about money/paying up beforehand, but also give smaller users a chance to work their way up through skills and/or education.
Just my 2 cents because you asked for input. Cheers.
I totally agree!
And I thank you for your input :)
On the cost for unknown teams. this is why we put the 60 days thing, the idea is that there is little chances that a "not well known" team might be successful in managing to get their proposal to funding before they had a track record of smaller proposals first. And ideally proposals should be done by milestones like "proposal 1 to achieve x/y/z, with the budget I will fund x for y$ z for k$" etc