Hope it brings positive things 

A two month search for funding seems to be a reasonable time frame. The increase of the cost of submitting a proposal also seems like a good method to keep spammy type proposals off the system and to reduce clutter. 

Most business operate in a quarterly fashion, if an update post of the progress being made is not completed in a timely fashion, then on all subsequent proposals from then that should be appended somewhere to let the voter know that this particular team did not keep the voters updated with standard progress reports.

Jiggling with price and time to fit the best proposal could be great instruments with moving forward. Uncluterring the list is another thing to keep new things on the map and new ideas coming in. I would jump for the proposals.

A main concern with the proposal creation price increase is whether it will discourage some people from creating proposals that could be valuable to the ecosystem. It seems that currently, for anyone who is not well established and known, it would take a while to reach enough support to get funded. This means more than 2 months. So I think the cutoff at 60 days does not correspond with current reality which is that it can take more than that to get above the return proposal. 

What is our goal here? From my view, it is to invite valuable proposals from anyone, regardless of the proposal size and whether the person is known. And to discourage spammy proposals that don't bring value to the ecosystem. From this point of view, it makes sense to me to start with less stringent proposal creation fees and increase them only if there is abuse/spam proposals. 

From this perspective (starting from less stringent and moving to more stringent only if need be), perhaps if the cutoff is at 90 days and/or the amount added is 0.5 HBD per day (or even less), we will be safer in thinking that no one will be discouraged from submitting a valuable proposal, and that at the same time spammy proposals will be discouraged.

I really enjoy this outreach to the community for feedback on such changes. I do think that it would be even better if there is a more standard way of doing it, like issuing all such requests for feedback from a dedicated account, e.g. @hiveio. This helps with communication as there is one "official" account that people can follow to get all such important communications. So the feedback request reaches more people and more of the community can give its input. The people who follow e.g. @howo may be more of a dev type people, and other types of people may have different perspectives.

After 60 days the initial costs for the proposal increases by 1HBD per day?
Seems appropriate.

I don’t really have anything to disagree with (even though I tried to get into that position as a mental exercise). I approve those changes!:D

I agree with the price of the proposal getting more expensive if it is made for a longer period. But a flat rate increase of 1 HBD per day seems lazy.

This would result in it affecting more modest proposals (in the 10-80 HBD per day range) far more than for larger requests. That's backwards. A proposal to let's say run an API like @anyx's proposal is exactly the type of proposal we would _want_ to make a long-term proposal. For at least two good reasons. First, when the proposal sum is low, the cost of time needed to get support for one's continuously renewed proposal is far greater. Second, these are the proposals we should want to be more stable and reliable, and not require frequent updates.

On the other hand, proposals for high funding (let's say 250HBD+), are those we should want to do more short term proposals to have accountability and document progress. To those, the flat rate of 1HBD is very little compared to it's percentage reduction on more modest proposals.

Which leads me to suggest that it would be better if the added cost of creating a proposal is a given **percent** of either the total amount asked for, or the daily payment. This would also help offset what could be a likely outcome of your other proposed change: Where people are encouraged to start unreasonably high with their asks since they can always just lower it later anyway.

A better example would be for the added cost to be 1% of the daily payment requested. Thus, a 25HBD/d proposal would add 0.25 HBD per day beyond 60. While a 500 HBD proposal would add 5.

That seems both more reasonable, as well as more likely to result in preferred behaviour.

Hey, @howo.

Is there a post somewhere I can go and read what all is now included in the upcoming hardfork?

It seems it could include this, and the second airdrop for folks who were mistakenly left out, plus those who have been approved since. After that, I'm a little hazy on what else might be involved. Even if it's highly technical, it would be nice to know.

I've gone to github a couple of times to see if I could figure out what might be happening, but I'm afraid I didn't have a whole lot of luck. It's been a few weeks since the last time, so I could try that again if that's the only place to look.

I do appreciate the time and effort of all involved in keeping HIVE up and running. As far as these changes for the proposal system, I have no major objections, other than 60-days could be too short an interval for even milestone projects as blocktrades describes. However, I am in agreement that increased oversight and accountability with these projects are needful and necessary things.

Useless work. SPS is broken and needs to be deleted from the system to ensure long term growth.

What's a proposal?

Proposal update is 100% good  especially option to decrease funding required.
Proposal Price increase just makes things more complex without significant benefit. Keep it simple.

I consider these fairly "lazy" changes and disapprove of the second one. 

>This solves the problem where someone submits a proposal that is deemed too expensive by stakeholders but then your only solution is making a new proposal which means having to ask everyone to re-vote on your other proposal.

See thats a <b>very wrong</b> way to go about it and im fully aware why you took that route. This effectively changes nothing since support for proposals is based far more on popularity then it is on expense for funded proposals. If you can get funding for 50 HBD then you can get funding for 100 HBD.
Coming to the conclusion as the proposal maker that something is deemed too expensive involves guesswork, probing feedback and more often then not (almost always) how expensive your proposal is doesnt really matter right now and with your change.
With what i propose, the expense would matter, as should be the case! 

Heres what you do.... (which im pretty certain none of you will support)

<h3>You introduce a voting slider that would vote a proposal only for the percentage you think the proposal deserves funding</h3>

So if you think the proposal maker deserves 30% of funding, you select on the voting slider 30% and the vote will be automatically canceled after the proposal has been funded for 30% of its days. <b>Basically just coding in an unvote command after set days.</b>

This would change a lot of things. While you could say "well just click unvote after set days". 
We know that doesnt work that way and the way that people perceive the proposal voting and voting sliders is very significant. 

This would encourage people to give lesser known proposal makers a chance to start up their funding, see what they come up with and if they will deliver. _Why not give them a chance for a couple days?_
It would also bring much more competition to the top spots reserved for the 4-5 of you.

I like with the changes. For those who say that the proposal from @anyx will get hurt, well he just needs to ask for 21 HBD daily instead of 20. 

This doesn't address any changes that are actually needed. No thanks!

Hey Howo, what is the goal of applying these changes? Is it just to decrease proposals that are lingering out there not being active? If there are more than a few goals, please let me know about all of them :). Perhaps I can run an analysis on it, and try to see if I can come up with a solution that covers a portion of it. 

Adding a fee to create a proposal wouldn't be a bad thing, however, an ongoing fee for X time is something that I consider to be limiting those who wish to contribute to the blockchain and find 1 HBD too much of a risk. As far as I'm concerned, proposals should only be funded if it brings value to the HIVE blockchain. 

Therefore, if someone is bringing value to the blockchain, I wouldn't ask them to pay for sharing and execute their ideas ongoingly while risking that their proposal isn't going through.

<b>Some thoughts</b>
- If people don't know how to write a proposal, perhaps with the right questions and fields, this could be resulting in having more proper and well-thought-out proposals. At least, I would find it odd if one submits a proposal that isn't planned out prior to submitting. Even with 1 HBD or x% fee, there would still be a chance to get the same in-active proposals we're dealing with today.

- If proposals are not being funded by X time, execute a kill on specific proposals, whereas applicants could both address the time-frame when their proposal should be funded or killed. An example; "I'm willing to propose this, and unless this proposal doesn't get funded in 60 days, I either: kill the proposal or re-apply the proposal manually in the nearby future."

- If a permalink is something that you can edit as an applicant, wouldn't that risk change of the rules in a proposal? Of course it is possible to look it up in blocks what was written prior to any change made. But if I voted for a proposal that didn't get through yet, maybe I wouldn't want to vote on it with a changed set of rules.

Cheers,
Ruben

While preventing abuse is good and all what I'd like to see sooner with regards to the proposal system is better filtering and display of proposals.

Currently it's a bit of a pain to view proposals and search through them by catagory or something. 

Perhaps a proposal should be made to standardise how proposals should be made and also add a way to categorise them. Like I donno Hive, 3rd party app, Mainteance cost. etc. 

Alternativly come up with a recommended standard for tags to help with finding proposals you are interested in.