Like ausbitbank said, if you upvote the "refund proposal" then you are essentially downvoting every other proposal to an equal amount of your upvote. If you want to also support a specific proposal, then upvote the refund proposal as well as the individual proposal you want to support, thus negating the "downvote" (return proposal).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I still think upvoting the return proposal is not the same as downvoting an existing proposal. Both are two different things. The return proposal is unnecessarily creating a huge bench mark for the proposals to even get listed. A small guy who is just starting with an idea will not even be able to come to the benchmark.
With the current system, we don't even have an option to bring a proposal down. If something is overrated, the community should have a facility to reduce the rating of a proposal. I'm sure return proposal is not a solution. It is just preventing to some extent but unnecessarily creating a huge benchmark like I said.
This system needs to be fixed and I think downvote would be an ideal solution.
For a moment forget the small guy who is just starting, and imagine the rich guy who is exploiting. He upvotes his exploit and downvotes everyone else thereby doubling his power. The small guy is even more screwed than when he had to face a return proposal, particularly when more than one rich guy is pulling the same shenanigans.
A return proposal is not an ideal solution to the small guy's predicament, but it is a solution to keep things moving without doubling the risk of centralization.
We already have a fair amount of centralization here already. We cannot help much. And yes return proposal helps but it definitely is not a solution.
By doing this you are also harming proposals you don't care about or don't know about. The return proposal is not ideal.
I disagree that downvotes are the answer to the problem you raise.
With downvotes in the current system a whale could upvote the return, upvote the ones they like, and downvote all other proposals. Then the barrier to entry for a new proposal would be FAR FAR worse than it currently is.
You can't just slap on downvotes and say "yep everything will be fixed now". You will have the same issues, only exaggerated.
There's nothing to disagree on regarding downvotes as I never said downvotes were the solution.
One account should not be able to vote on more than a certain amount of proposals and there could be a predetermined floor instead of relying on the return proposal to fulfil two functions. The return proposal was necessary to ensure the pool didn't get robbed by selfish proposals, however, allowing whales to actively control its level is neither fair nor ideal.
A fork could say proposals will not pass if they don't get at least x votes from at least y people, considering active hive. Everything below the floor will be returned to the DAO. The return proposal was a stop-gap measure to cover an oversight in the SPS/DAO and should be made permanent and fixed, or floating on some level based on some pre-determined function of active hive.
This is not really good, because if someone wants a certain proposal to get funded whereas not the others one, then this will not work