"How would a better system works in your mind?"
Personally I am averse to 51% of voters spending the money of the 49% that voted no. Hive could account the DHF differently because those that vote to disburse funds from the DHF could spend only their share of it, while those that vote against proposals would maintain their share of the DHF, because we can calculate those values and treat those funds differently. We are not limited to the technologies available in the Enlightenment during which IRL democracies were founded. This would enable the profligate to spend their share of the Founder's Stake away without a care in the world, while the prudent could keep their share for substantive purposes.
@themarkymark may have the requisite skill to code such differentiation. I only know such calculation is mathematically potential.
I don't think the system will ever change to a pure majority only voting system. The reality is most people don't have much stake and most don't vote on top of that.
What I mean isn't majority rule, but if you vote for a proposal you vote to dispense your share of the DHF to it if it passes. If you don't support it, your share of the fund isn't dispersed if it passes, and is reserved for things you do vote for. 100% of the funds for any proposal are born by the supporters' portion of stake in the DHF, proportional to their staked Hive relative to the amount of staked Hive extant.
People only vote on dispersal of DHF stake proportional to the weight of their stake overall - and they spend that stake in the DHF down each time they vote a proposal that is funded, until they don't have any weight left in the DHF.
Follow me mathematically?
If I understand you correctly, it sounds like proposals would pass but with only partial funding?
In my opinion, the barrier needs to be high enough to cut off all funding unless a specific threshold is reached.
If the supporters of the proposal have enough stake to pay it, it would be paid. If they don't, it would only get what they could send it. So, in the latter case, yeah, it would only get partial funding, because it's supporters could only disburse partial funding. Folks that didn't vote for it wouldn't be providing it funds from their 'stake' in the DHF.
I thought I was voting the return proposal, but when I checked I wasn't. I am now.
I think a lot of folks don't vote or pay attention to proposals because they aren't interested in them, or they don't think they matter. Were they to be solely responsible for disbursing a portion of the DHF proportional to their stake, perhaps they'd feel like they mattered, at least that much.
I don't like democracy. I don't like other people being able to tell me how to spend my money, or my stake in the DHF, and that's what pure majority rule would do. The return proposal limits that potential, as you've said you feel is necessary. I agree such a hurdle is necessary, but even if it's surmounted I don't want folks spending my stake for things I don't vote for. I'd like to see the change in the DHF proposal system I outline for that reason, and I think prudent folks that didn't spend away the DHF would end up being the only folks able to vote on proposals, because the portion of it they control would be all that's left to fund proposals with, sooner or later.
Valuplan taking 10k HBD/day suggests that will be sooner, rather than later.
So if I put up a proposal "Make Marky Rich" and no one but me votes it, I would get paid whatever my 3M HP would count for?
No. You wouldn't surmount the return proposal. If a bunch of people voted for it and it got over the return, then the DHF would pay you from the funds of the voters' stake in the DHF. If those voters had been paying out other proposals so much that they didn't control enough fund in the DHF to feed your need for sybaritic wealth, you'd only get what they had available to pay out.
The DHF funds non-voters controlled would not be disbursed to you.
Once profligate voters no longer had DHF stake left, because they'd spent it all on proposals they voted for, they could help get a proposal over the return, but they would not have any stake in the DHF to pay out. Because of that, I think once folks have no stake left in the DHF, they should no longer be able to vote on proposals. Don't think it matters much, since their ability to fund proposals would be over.