We need more time to experiment and see how the 100k ADA deposit for proposals functions. The deposit it really important. In this system anyone can still participate in submitting a proposal. They simply need to pool form a poiltical partyy and pool their governance power via a smart contract solution. The barrier serves as a HUGE incentive to develop off-the-shelf products to solve this problem. Until this becomes ubiquitous in the ecosystem and we can see the impact, I will vote NO.

Yes to 100K and DIDs (whenever ready) | No to centralized KYC. 100K barrier can be solved by: 1) Crowdfunding-like solutions; 2) Proposal Delegation Support; 3) Similar alternatives. Centralized KYC would detriment the principles of decentralization and anonymity. We should push for a real effort towards DIDs.

Are there any Centralized KYC solutions that are trusted within the community as opposed to outside, due to the sensitivity of the information. I can understand the proposal and eventually it will need to be addressed but in its current form it does protect from malicious activity. Id like to see this proposal brought to open discussion because it can be exclusive to some communities.

I took the pain to help explain this clause in simpler terms to ease the understanding of what could be at stake in submitting a governance proposal: "Any Ada holder can submit a governance action to the chain. They must provide a deposit of govActionDeposit Lovelace, which will be returned when the action is finalized (whether it is ratified or has expired). The deposit amount will be added to the deposit pot, similar to stake key deposits. It will also be counted towards the stake of the reward address it will be paid back to, to not reduce the submitter's voting power to vote on their own (and competing) actions."

My explanation: "When someone wants to submit a proposal or action, they need to pay a deposit in a currency called Lovelace. This deposit is held until the proposal is completed, which means it is either approved or rejected, or the proposal period expires. The money deposited is placed into a common pool, similar to how security deposits work for other features. Importantly, while the deposit is held, it still counts as part of the submitter's stake. This means it still contributes to their voting power, allowing them to vote on their own proposal and on other proposals without any disadvantage. When the proposal process is over, the deposit is returned to them."

In essence, requiring a deposit of ₳100K for the submission of a governance action has its own pros and cons and I love the STS provided in the proposal. The one that resonates well with me is DRep-Based Submission as it seeks to encourage individual ADA holders to contribute to governance processes through DReps. But my question is, how many DReps can/could raise ₳100K to submit a governance proposal? How easy would it even be? This looks more like building a governance system and handing it right over to the wealthiest to govern. And just like every renowned rich person acts, their interests are always first.

Perhaps we could identify other safe measures of ensuring that there is no DDOs or spamming of the system againts the proposed ₳100K deposit requirement.

While the proposal sounded good the proposed Shorted solution is what I won't consent to. Which Centralized body can be trusted to handle the KYC? That would be a big tradeoff that would undermine the core principle of Cardano. Instead appealing directly for a reduction in the funds or perhs start DAO for small concerned Holders to raise the required 100k ADA may be another option.

I'm pretty clear that users with less than 100,000 ada can opt to delegate thier voting power to a Drep that shares their views. Logically then I do not see the 100,000 ada requirement to table a proposal a barrier to entry but a simplistic method that locks the required 100,000 ada until the propsal is voted upon at which time the 100,000 is released. I'm sure there are varios methods inside the ecosystem that allows for someone to obtain 100,000 ada for a few months if they are intent on making their own proposal. That being written if there is not currently a specific liquididty pool providing all ada holders to obtain a 100,000 ada bond for government proposals I'm remain confident one will be created.

I think this is not good

100,000 ADA is about $34,000 today. You would need to be a "manta ray" to qualify. That is a lot of money that will exclude a lot of smart programers just because they do not have much money. It goes contrary to our principle of maximum inclusion. The purpose of grants is precisely to help those rich with great ideas and poor with cash.

To be fully "inclusive" you'd need 0 ADA. This is not manageable nor in the interest of the governing the protocol. As Dirty Harry said: "Opinions are like a*****e, everybody has one." I'd like to see a stakeholder commitment from those who shape the future of Cardano. Not timewasters submitting proposals and governance actions because they want to "participate" and merely have a stake in the Cardano community nor actively participate in it nor understand anything about it or the protocol. I believe 100k ADA is just right. It doesn't break the bank. Work hard and save up. Rise above the rest and your voice will be heard.

It is too soon for this.

Great proposal, very well writen! I agree with the short term solution of using centralized entities, Intersect could be in charge of KYC. A better way to solve this issue can be adding Open Banking backed DIDs, we can ensure users have unique identities.

Great point.. agree. The real issue is trust/security. Creating a known agent process will help address this issue.

What I am surprised by with the mainnet launch of Gov Tool, is that it was stated by some of those in the Constitutional committee and Intersect that there would be a crowdsourcing tool available to solve this problem. Then on launch we don't have it :(

Can DIDs help solve this issue? I agree the 100k Ada requirement can be exclusionary.

I agree with your concerns, but I think the only one of the solutions that is feasible is crowdfunding. The others enable different kinds of exclusion or plutocracy that IMHO would be worse than the problem they are trying to solve.

I believe this solution would give more options to token holders and give them an incentive to be more involved in teh ecosystem early on. It is very difficult to hold this much ada to be involved in governance. Enhancing the constitution is the goal.

Nicely written. Looking at the proposed short-term solutions: (1) Does KYC prove that someone is an ADA holder and how? (2) crowdfunding is an interesting concept (3) Does allowing only DReps with significant voting power exclude many ADA holders again?

KYC is far more exclusionary than a small financial barrier of entry. It also disenfranchises members who live in countries who might persecute them for holding public opinions against their state. Some barrier is necessary to limit spam and DRep overload.