On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > I'm starting to get the impression that basing an economy on proposal > pending never works. Sometimes, distributing a proposal is part of a > scam, and thus worth paying for / fighting over. However, the majority > of proposals are intended to be "for the good of Agora" type things > which give no benefit to the proposer over what they give to Agora as a > whole. Asking people for payment for those seems backwards; rather, we > should be /rewarding/ people for them.
It worked a couple times before. Here's my guesses at why in the previous systems: 1. It wasn't the only way to spend money. It was always in concert with other things to spend on. 2. There was a "Without N Objections" method for distributing "good of Agora" proposals. So it didn't crater the economy, people would police it well and object to anything that wasn't a "good of Agora" proposal. 3. There were gains on the other end (e.g. Points, or returns to be used on other parts of the economy) if your proposal was adopted. So it could be an actual investment. Other things that may have contributed: 4. A "right to propose" was a fixed item you could buy for cash, save, etc. so it wasn't just a matter of laying out some fungible currency. And you could trade it for other things, and the cash value could change. 5. The speed of accumulation was such that a good% of people couldn't propose at any given time, so it was a definite barrier, that required trading, asking favors, etc., not just a "I can do this anytime with a bit of extra $$ I have".
