You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 10, 2023. It is now read-only.
introducing non-refundable contributions fixed #84 but now we have this other problem
bounty4 proposal
A Permill threshold is set in the field of the struct BountyOf<T> to represent the required vote threshold to veto decisions made by the original funder. Votes can be triggered by any contributor (tracked in double_map BountyId, AccountId => Option<BalanceOf<T>>).
Another threshold could be set for the required threshold of support from contributors to trigger the second vote on a decision. This adds more friction for vetoing spending decisions.
Another threshold to trigger refunds in proportion to historic contributions. This drain the account associated with the Bounty to return remaining funds in proportion to contributions. It would NOT reverse already executed spends.
(next)
Could add more thresholds to enable the group to propose and pass spends which are not veto-able by the representative/initial funder. This would have significant overlap with bank.
Threshold for selecting a new representative (waiting on borda count module)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
introducing non-refundable contributions fixed #84 but now we have this other problem
bounty4 proposal
Permill
threshold is set in the field of the structBountyOf<T>
to represent the required vote threshold to veto decisions made by the original funder. Votes can be triggered by any contributor (tracked indouble_map BountyId, AccountId => Option<BalanceOf<T>>
).Another threshold could be set for the required threshold of support from contributors to trigger the second vote on a decision. This adds more friction for vetoing spending decisions.
Bounty
to return remaining funds in proportion to contributions. It would NOT reverse already executed spends.(next)
Could add more thresholds to enable the group to propose and pass spends which are not veto-able by the representative/initial funder. This would have significant overlap with
bank
.Threshold for selecting a new representative (waiting on borda count module)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: