FYI: I just updated proposal to use new permlink with:

update_proposal 0 gtg "240000000.000 HBD" "Return Proposal" "dhf" "2029-12-31T23:59:59" true

Congratulations @gtg! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You published more than 90 posts.Your next target is to reach 100 posts.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Seems like the hbdstabilizer proposals get to the same place but do more.

They do but, at least in theory, stakeholders should have the option to vote them out and have the funds go to return if they don't like how it is being run. Also the stabilizer proposals will expire relatively soon (one already expired but it was small and I didn't think it was needed). I plan to submit renewal proposals but at some point I might not, or they might not be approved. So the possibility of needing a pure return is still there.

K cool solid reason

Yes, hbdstabilizer is in fact "return proposal that does fancy stuff in the meantime", but I want pure return as a safety guard, utilizing it's long expiration and crazy high "payout" (it was created when proposals wasn't charged extra for distant end_date.

It would cost a lot to create a proposal with such a distant end_date. my bad :p

I'm genuinely worried about so many great propositions being rejected, but it's more due to the whales not wanting than the fault of the return proposal

Or sometimes they are just not great enough. Viable way of voting for proposals is to start with voting all proposals you like AND return proposal.
Then reevaluate and adjust your votes.
I'm in fact currently NOT VOTING for return proposal.

@gtg I will support you

Good stuff to brand it on Hive :)

>It would cost a lot to create a proposal with such a distant end_date

IMO it is good to have some costs to prevent spam.

But I'm more a fan of " hire fast - fire fast". I also think the price is too high for microtasks.

Low-cost proposals and more of them are IMO much better than expensive ones and only some. 10$ is IMO good spam protection, and to hide the spam a downvote/hide vote would work IMO.

I would like more a mentality of "let's try things out" and if they doesn't work after some time period, defund.

I think we have a lot of know-how in our community from different topics. To get the potential out of it we should be more open to funding some things.

I think it is close to impossible to get a 20$ a day proposal get funded. But in these can be a lot of long term value.

> IMO it is good to have some costs to prevent spam.

Of course, that was the idea behind it.
For micro tasks author rewards are good enough.

that's also true :D

Hi @gtg , I'm trying to understand the DHF. So this return proposal is the benchmark, proposals who have received less HP support than it will not get funded. But where does the support for this "return" proposal come from ? In other words, how is its own ranking calculated? Is it some kind of average or median of all the other, or some other mechanism? Thanks in advance

My return proposal is just like any other proposal, it's not some hardcoded concept, I was just trying submit it ASAP (still, manually), so it has first id: 0. It has ridiculously big amount of daily pay, to be sure that it can consume everything that is not consumed earlier (i.e. by proposals voted higher than that).
And support for this proposal is also usual, that is, mechanism same as for any other proposal: people are voting for it (or not).
Currently it might be better to vote for one of the HBD stabilizer proposal to play such "threshold" role, because not only it will return those funds back to DHF, but in the meantime it will help with the HBD.

Oh, thanks, interesting point. However, there are some things I still don't get: do you mean to say "Return proposal" is not hard coded but simply, through its "ridiculously big amount", it "crowds out" the proposals underneath ? In that case, it doesn't provide a "cut off" and the proposals below it still receive "a trickle" of funds ? Also, the "Hive Gamification Proposal" is above the Return proposal but in the peakd display it appears that it still doesn't receive funding - how comes?

[IMAGE: https://images.ecency.com/DQmSurvBzURyKGK2CVtCKaMrsw6VHD4LSHmgYDjJqpKk6mb/dhf_proposals.jpg]

DHF has some funds (x) to spend every hour, it goes from top to bottom (votes count) until x = 0.
If it will reach my proposal having x > 0 then my proposal will get all what's left (amount is really big enough for that) and send it back to DHF.
Currently however, HBD stabilizer proposal has a daily pay so big that it eats what's left from x, so neither gamification proposal or return proposal are funded.

Thanks, much clearer now!

So voting for this proposal makes it harder for people to grift?

What happens when this expires? Instant renewal, without votes, until votes arrive? Or some better plan?

It's a proposal like any other. Once it expires, it's gone. I can also cancel it at any time.
Better plan is, before its expiration (more than 5 years from now) create a new one, and vote it accordingly.

That would have been my suggestion. Prepare in advance. So now I'm prepared in advance. Good enough.

Is there anyway to up the minimum number of votes a hive proposal needs for funding. I see the daily rates some of these places are demanding, when they probably, at best should be monthly or annual returns.

Granted, there are some good projects on the dao, but someone's little side project that they might tinker with 1-2 times a year shouldn't be subsidized to the tune of several engineer's salary in America. Is there anyway to set it to say 50 million HP votes?

The more voting power is supporting the Return Proposal, the higher is the bar to get funding.
(So yes, except not number of votes but power of votes).

Vote the return proposal so bad proposals that do not properly account for their expenditures are harder to slip past the bar.

Hello and thank you, I will share something below as a "human feedback" on the process of proposals.

When meeting with the HIVE people in real life in Berlin 2023 I pitched several proposals there to a witness.

I did not even propose them yet because I was told it would be too hard to get a proposal voted for.

I received explanations that re-funding an "existing proposal" was "easy" and that it depended on connections but that funding a new proposal was not. That it needed to see it like a senator campaign, to go to all IRL events, that there were groups (some not liking the other), that it will be exhausting and cost a lot of efforts. I was repeatedly told to NOT DO IT.

I understand that of course a different witness may have shared a different opinion, but that was a cold shower.

I had a few proposals ideas, including (1) a hive cross-game plugin to broadcast game news across several games (2) an independent radio that we could feature in our games too, and (3) a third party that evaluates ethics and tokenomics in games and also thinking about (4) a different block explorer with some added services which I thought could be nice, as a game developer myself. I had developer a database management system that could handle the scale at a cheap cost.

I am also the EXODE developer at https://exode.io and meeting other game devs made me think that we could feature such elements but it needed some important extra effort to make it happen. And of course should be free for all users.

I was disappointed because I thought the systems in place would make it seen & voted if found interesting.

But if that needs to do a lot more in PR than the actual cost of the work there may be an issue. Same if existing connections for votes are more important than the technical or the proposal itself.

Now, I only send this as feedback!
Obviously you have more knowledge about the process than I do, and can confirm or not if it is a PR process or a proposal process.

What would be your feeling about this situation?
Am I making a mistake in my reading this situation?

Now unless I am mistaken, I do feel that if in addition to that there is also a threshold making it harder, I really don't understand how that could work for new, nice ideas that would not focus on PR. I see the worth of the Refund Proposal but I am afraid of the hardships for new proposals as the PR-need was already sounding huge.

I understand the will to refine the process but I think any adjustment should give the impression that new proposals (if with proper relatively cheap costs) "are made easier to notice" and not even harder to get voted for even when they are possibly noticed.

Hive is a relatively small platform with a tight budget. In my opinion, the DHF should be treated as a reserve for core development and platform-wide marketing efforts that can't be funded in other ways. Reaching consensus among stakeholders is not easy, and as a witness, I understand this well because getting support for witness operations follows the same governance voting rules.

Of course, other witnesses and stakeholders (witnesses who are not acting as stakeholders don't really count here) may have different opinions about the DHF and proposals. Some are okay with supporting projects at an early stage, but in the long run, self-sustainability is the most important thing.

Even if a project doesn’t get DHF support, Hive still offers a lot; free transactions, on-chain data storage (custom json), security and reliability of the platform (thanks to witnesses), strong social layer with benefits from author/curation rewards, the strong social layer, all that with zero platform fees.

Return proposal is currently voted by 25% of stakeholders, so it's really, really low treshold, given the acceptance I would imagine for spending platform wide funds.

My support, thanks to @forkyishere for their concern and support for Hive's resurgencee