RE: On proposals

"If I understand you correctly, it sounds like proposals would pass but with only partial funding?"

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.

"...the barrier needs to be high enough to cut off all funding unless a specific threshold is reached."

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.