the one issue is right now with the exchanges frozen, the price won't reflect what I think will happen (a gentle bump). But I guess the payout on proposals isn't until January, which brings me to a question. How do we word a proposal that doesn't cite specific amounts of BBP but rather a price/value? Should the proposals say (using current $0.004444 and 23 sat values) 11,251 BBP to pay a $50 expense for some work done based on the current value or should they say, pay $50 in BBP and that price be determined on the payout day? Likewise with prices in BTC, so the above, would the proposal say .125 BTC in BBP or should it say 544K BBP to pay a .125 BTC for a listing expense?
The two issues I see are in the first example (work done), citing the value as BBP puts a lot of risk of fluctuation. Not singling out Togo because he's been HUGE in this, but he's asking for $600 at the current rate for a total of 135K BBP. But if the price were to double between now and the January payouts, he would get a huge windfall, and likewise, if the price plummeted (if BTC dropped to $6K and we stayed at 23 sat), he would not get fairly paid. Either is a poor outcome. In the second case, we MUST pay .125 BTC worth of BBP so expressing it at 544K BBP isn't very workable.
https://www.dashforcenews.com/dash-budget-proposals-and-the-problem-of-extra-money/https://www.dashforcenews.com/evaluating-how-much-a-dash-budget-proposal-is-worth/We are worrying too much about this. I want millionaires to become millionaires. If we focus too long on this we risk missing bigger opportunities. Imo, I would like to keep quoting proposals at our last midpoint, in BBP, and if one receives a windfall because the price rises, then they receive a windfall. I dont mind if Togo becomes a millionaire, as Dash masternode owners did.
Just be concious that once we do this, no one has the right to complain if BBP drops after they receive payment. We are basically making a best effort to pay you at our market rate.
Also, once we are listed on a larger exchange, such as bittrex, that exchange will have the ability to absorb much bigger depth. So its going to be more of a moot point in shorter terms.
These psychological problems arent ours. It happens where good times turn to bad very quickly, we could be a $20 million coin one month and a $10 MM the next month, so I say lets take the good with the bad and work hard and look past the microstructure for a while.
My point was this. Togo is awesome. Well, that's just one of my points. It's late so I'll read the DASH articles with fresh eyes tomorrow, but I have an idea what they're saying now. I generally agree that anyone doing work for the project probably understands the risk/reward of fluctuation in price. So I agree the best way for that sort of work should be to take the Coinmarketscap current price and ask accordingly (like Togo did). The question then is how to address the fixed cost issue. Let's say I propose we buy a Gift Ark package from Heifer International. It's a $5000 expense. Right now that would be 732K BBP. If approved, it might not get minted for another week. Since Heifer doesn't take BBP, we have to sell and pay in cash. If the price dropped to $.001, then we'd be short $4000. If the price jumped to $.015 we'd have $6000 too much. Likewise the example where getting listed at an exchange needs paid in BTC. What might be worth 1 BTC today, might not be sufficient in a week. The way DASH handles this is the proposal "owner" ends up handling the transaction, if extra money is generating by a rising value, they are expected to be good stewards and use it wisely but they're not really specific on how to do that. So far it's worked for them. If the value declines, then they bank it and ask for the difference in the next cycle and hopefully get it. That's not seemed to be such a problem as of late for them.
But the question boils down to how are we going to do it?