Equity proportional to stake means no consensus is necessary to draw to your own account. While it would be entirely "fair" it would reduce the purpose of the DHF just self voting. The proposal covers this by giving everybody full weight on votes upto the funding amount, so a consensus is still required to spend.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Unless the proposal is just kicking back to the whales voting for it, there's no 'self voting' for DHF proposals. Reducing the VP of voters proportional to their votes for passing proposals reflects the reality of their equity in the DHF, and further incentivizes prudence, and prevents profligacy.
We need a system that doesn't just work in practice, but also in edge cases. If it doesn't work on old chain then it's a problem here too.
I like the thought of having different return levels for different proposals (like a threshold for proposals under 100, 500, 1000, 5000 etc) I'll have to mull on that as well.
I really like the idea too!
Upon reflection, that's probably preferable than just enabling DV's.
Good news... That's very nearly what this proposal does, and a little smoother so it can't be gamed as easily. The ladder is from daily inflow ~$1500 a day down to ~4500 a day(depending on price).
There might be lower totals, for instance enabling single expenditures of as little as may be desirable for superable purposes. Sometimes it's the little things that count.