As I understand it, proposals are added to a list of all the other proposals. Every day the reserve-pool pays out to #1 on the list until #1 proposal has been funded. Then #2, #3...
If every proposal has a very small budget perhaps 100 proposals will be funded that day, but if #1 is a mega-project then any other proposals may lack funding.
Is there a name for this proposal list?
- Proposers: Who will be able to make proposals? Will they require at least the support of a designated developer or CNX?
I would hope that anyone would be able to make a proposal, assuming there is a fee to commit it to the blockchain. If a proposal gets zero votes it doesn't really matter, does it? More proposals = more fees. I can see that there may be so many proposals that it might be harder to choose but perhaps a 'best of' list only includes proposals that meet a threshold % chance of success. By list I mean an off-chain(?) place to view and read proposals, not 'the
list' of ranked proposals that the reserve-pool pays out to.
- Quality: Do minimum information standards need enforcement in the proposal, or let the community be free to decide the quality of each proposal?
I would be wary of any censorship. If the community abhors poor grammar then the market will push proposers to spell-check etc.
Unless these minimum standards can be implemented with a bot to check that important information like timelines and funding schedules are included. If proposals exist as a hash of content on the blockchain then I can't see how this would be possible.
- Budgets - Is there proposed to be a budget limit per project, or a limit on the rate at which any project can draw funds? For example, are draw rates >1 current delegate envisaged?
Could you clarify what you mean by the bold
I think projects are paid out in list-order, as above. Proposals set their own funding needs and only recieve them if they are ranked high enough on the list and there are still funds left to be paid from the reserve pool that block/day/week?
- Killing a project - Is the idea that incomplete projects can only be removed by a veto system, rather than simply falling off a list due to voter apathy?
I think the idea is that an unwanted proposals are simply voted down the list. This allows proposal-funding to be 100% determined by shareholder vote.
I've thought about my previous suggestion of an early-termination clause and I don't think it can work. A bad actor who doesn't want to see super-mega-feature implemented in bts could then pay a fee to stop the work - not desirable for bts.
- Accountability - Can payments be contingent upon meeting prescribed delivery milestones in the project terms?
A committee of delegates or human oracles would be needed for this. Is this the intended function of delegates now? I'm not really sure what they (don't) get paid for.
- Voter Apathy - How do we deal with lack of voting interest in projects? Can we delegate to voting blocs, or elect a default voter? Can we use dynamic account permissions to do this?
I'd like to know how votes are calculated.
Say only 1% of the network actually votes. Would the consensus reached by these 1% be applied to the whole network, or would the blockchain wait indefinitely until more votes are cast? Is there a threshold % of voters required?
I would assume that if delegates can publish slates to vote for other delegates then they would also be able to publish dynamic slates of worker proposals too.
If delegates do end up performing these oracle duties how can we ensure there are minimal conflicts of interest? Will delegates be allowed to publish a worker proposal?