This is the thread for any EGF related proposal queries and issues
Opening a discussion on this and this will be item number #23 in the monday board
- lowering the initial deposit amount to say 1K and total deposit amount to 3K for all other proposals
- for EGF, was thinking of lowering the deposit amount to 1K and 10% of whatever is requested.
- so if you are requesting for anything up till 10K, you will just need the initial deposit.
- beyond that, say you are requesting 100K, you will need a total of 10K. (if quite a number of you agree, then we will do some research in making this happen)
- this ensures that there is enough community support if the proposer does not have enough funding.
- and also ensures that proposers will give a bit more thought about how much they actually need.
- the more you request for, the more FX you will need to have. this ensures stability of the system and prevents outsiders who are not part of the network to come in and game the system.
Completely agree with your points.
(MY THOUGHTS RELATED TO PROJECTS ON FX CORE CHAIN AND NOT CHANGES TO THE CORE OR OTHER CRITICAL PROPOSALS)
However, some changes need to be made with regards to “what happens to the deposited fx if the proposal fails”.
I, personally, do not like the process where the depositor loses all their funds if they are unable to reach the quorum or if the proposal fails.
In case the proposal fails, we could go for 80/20 rule where 80% of the deposited fx is locked up for up to a year and 20% is lost. 20% fx obtained from lost deposits could be used to replenish the EGF while the locked 80% could be moved to a company validator and the rewards would again be used for replenishing EGF.
This could significantly lower risk for the proposers and more projects could be proposed for the pipeline.
One more point, if we expect the price of FX to go up significantly by the end of the year, 1k FX might be a bit too much for people requesting amounts less than 5k. Wouldn’t stable value be more useful in this case like USD instead of FX.
Very good points raised. However, there are some tech hurdles for such requests. for example,
changing burning of failed proposals to partial locking would require changing the underlying blockchain code. this would require research+changing the code (ensuring other modules are not affected)+testing+running it through governance (needs to pass voting). so unless its something that everyone feels very strongly about, then we will focus on it.
with regards to having a stable coin, depending on the architecture employed, it would either require an oracle, and it would require for eg. creating an algo stable coin…changing FX to a new mechanism…this would be a huge tech request, so again, if its something that everyone feels very strongly about, then we will focus on it.
I think for these 2 requests, for now there are other focuses like EVM support, improving our internal/external workflow processes, improving our on-chain analytics…we can cycle back to these requests when needed
You are right. The focus must be on EVM deployment on the mainnet, DEX and other core features of the fx ecosystem.