[bisq-network/proposals] Propose DAO phase periods and fees (#46)

[Manfred Karrer]

Re 1:
We had some discussions around that in the past so thats why I adjusted to accoring to that outcome. 
I see a bit of a benefit to get some extra time before people start to vote and maybe make wrong decisions if some context needs to be communicated via other channels. E.g. someone makes a  dangerous param change request and some stakeholders want to have time to raise awareness to other stakeholders before they start voting.
Beside that this longer break could be used for a solution to freeze/archive the proposals so in case they got changed in GH the original is still available (still an open issue but not critical for launch IMO). 

Re 2:
Fine for me. We can make both blind vote and reveal 3 days.

Re 3:
The 23 value was a mistake. Will fix it to 3 as well.
I want to avoid to over-use the param change framework. I think the min/max should give enough headroom and are already prob. too large. Bigger changes can be done in iterations. The min/max only relates to the current value. So if its 2 you can double up each month.

There will be some additional restrictions not covered ny the min/max like vote threshold cannot be lower than 50% or break phases cannot be reduce to < 6 blocks (reorg risk) and they cannot be negative. Those validations are still WIP and I will work on that soon.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/46#issuecomment-474120975
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20190318/c0dbb1ab/attachment-0001.html>