@skilesare
I agree with @bjoernek here
My point number 4 above should be deleted since this proposal does not eliminate the potential for spam for the purpose of advertisement.
Also, I see this proposal as a framework for a path forward, not the final solution that will be implemented as written. Hence, I would rather see some of these key elements incorporated into the proposal now even if implementation comes in stages. I don’t see a need for a rushed implementation of this proposal, especially when an increased proposal reject fee is a quicker and easier temporary solution to any increased risk of weekend spam when exchange rate proposals are removed from the NNS.
To me, this proposal is a very good way to build an NNS treasury that can fund a lot of efforts that drive governance participation and decentralization. I think this proposal and periodic confirmation of followees are two solutions to the spam problem (for financial gain) that each have a higher value use case beyond spam prevention. Hence, it’s not critical to sell this proposal as a spam prevention mechanism.