Yep exactly. There are reward pool police all over downvoting posts that make $30 etc (which the author only makes $15 on btw) while there have been proposals getting $150-$500 per day with basically no oversight on them to make sure they are doing what they stated they would...
Talk about worrying about the wrong things!
Trouble is it takes whale power to influence the support the proposals are getting to any significant degree unless a couple of thousand small stakeholders manage to act in a concerted manner.
The current sorry state of the DAO perfectly demonstrates the perils of a centralized stake distribution.
Witness votes can be proxied. Can votes on proposals be? The problem is most people have no clue as to how to evaluate anyone's work.
There is no way to evaluate it! It's mostly opaque! This is also brings up another point. There isn't any reason to actually worry about your proposal creating real value for HIVE that is reflected by the price going up etc. The incentive is to get funded... there is no benchmark for whether you get to keep that funding.
As crude example...
A development team could ask for $150k worth of funding to develop something every year, while it doesn't matter if what they built actually added value. They got paid $150k regardless. The investors in the project are the ones that footed the bill.
In case of software development, you can check if any work is getting done. No work getting done for a considerable length of time seems to have been the case with Netuoso's proposals.
That's where smart stakeholders should step in. They should only vote on proposals that include the benchmarks and that provide verifiable reporting.
This is always the case in investing. If you have to get a product finished before it can make you money, you will just have to spend the money to get it done regardless of the fact that there are no guarantees. It's the stakeholders' job to decide whether they think a project is worth funding in the first place.
True. What happened to the days of building a stake and then working to create value for said stake? If it takes off you make money, if it doesn't, you don't.
Also, why not have downvotes on proposals? We have them on posts why not let users who disagree on the amount something is getting paid vote against it?
That's a good idea. The only way to prevent anything from getting funded is the return proposal.
The return proposal is kind of a downvote, you vote for it and anything that has less stake backing it up will not receive funding.
The tricky part is that stakeholders need to coordinate to make sure that non-deserving proposals get pushed below that threshold.