Increase ZNN Proposal Submission from 1 ZNN to 10 ZNN (nonrefundable)

We are getting spammed with shitpost proposals (Holo Network - AMM Better). Let’s ask our spammer to support the network by increasing the nonrefundable submission cost from 1 ZNN to 10 ZNN.

  • Yes I support this proposal
  • No I do NOT support this proposal

0 voters

We could also make 9 ZMM (also know as ZNN) refundable upon approval?

4 Likes

If I may, I think we should wait for a bit before deciding on this change, which I believe is a significant one taking the long term perspective on things. I find it expected especially with Zenon that the first waive of proposals are shitpost and troll projects. However, I believe this will not be for long and given some time, the issue will disappear on its own. So, what I’m suggesting is that we wait for a month or so then reassess and decide.

2 Likes

I support this and think it’s the most suitable solution if we must increase the proposal’s creation/submission fee.

1 Like

Just bear in mind that the amount of ZNN required is hard coded in go-zenon so it will require a network software upgrade (spork) to make any changes.

1 Like

If this would require a spork anyway I would probably rather go with a bonding structure (e.g. lock up 50 ZNN per proposal until it’s been voted on) instead of in reasing the burnable amount @0x3639 what do you think?

I’m not sure I fully understand the bonding proposal.

If the bonded funds are locked up for the 14 days and are then returned regardless of the vote outcome, there isn’t much disincentive to spam.

If they are bonded and only are released with a ‘yes’ vote and are foreited with a ‘no’ vote then that is quite a punch in the nuts. First your proposal didn’t get funded, second you lost the bond, even if you’re not spamming and are a genuine applicant.

1 Like

My preference is to keep the current system.1 ZNN is a good enough disincentive to prevent spam, the person doing the current spam will get bored of it - or not - it doesn’t really matter.

The reason to keep it is to encourage applications. Bonding over-complicates matters and will take time to implement. The core team has bigger fish to fry right now.

Also when the price moves up - which eventually it will - we would need to go through the rigmarole of another proposal to lower it and waste time and resources again. During the implementation of this creators may be locked out or disincentivized due to application fees being 100 or more dollars.

The fact that we are open and decentralized means we are gonna get some nonsense like this. But let’s not be reactionary - The 1 ZNN prevents bots and mass spamming - which is why it’s there. If somebody wants to play nonsense games with “spam” proposals then let them do it - they will get bored eventually. And every ZNN spent goes back to developers and creators, so whatever.

5 Likes