Hey all. So as ICP continues its downward spiral, forward-thinking individuals here have been putting forward great ideas. In addition to those intelligent individuals, I too have been putting forward ideas for consideration.
I believe there is presently a 10 ICP cost associated with putting forward a proposal if it fails. Is that correct?
At present that amounts to less than $30, which is hardly a deterrent to the sort of bad proposals we could see. And if/when ICP declines below $1, the price will reach levels where prank proposals become common.
So here is my schematic for improved proposal economics:
- Proposal cost is not returned if the proposal passes or fails.
- Proposal cost is constant and denominated in cycles. I suggest a proposal should cost 100 trillion cycles.
- Since proposals are denominated in cycles this implies that the proposal cost is burned.
- optional: Governance proposals could have a different cost than other proposals.
There is no reason that at low prices proposals should be extremely cheap, or that at high prices the cost should be prohibitive to the masses.
Combined with efforts to reform node compensation, efforts to change transaction cost, and efforts to make staking for 8 years relatively more attractive, I believe we can improve the economics of ICP. Improved economics alone will not save ICP but will help streamline a recovery and remove those market forces which could entirely derail the project.