My recommendation is 100,000 cfg. Because I have $50,000 in the stock market and enough to continue my protests. Since the project can be evaluated in the future, giving a referendum every week provides a mandatory hold for me. I think you should think about it 
I support the increase in the minimum self-bond to 1000, if a proposer can’t meet the minimum self-bond then one of the council members or a community member could submit the proposal on-chain on their behalf (assuming it followed the appropriate off-chain procedure and was approved after discussion on the forum).
Why did you decide that I was malicious? Protests cannot be malicious. Democracies also have room for protests. The purpose of the protest is to correct and improve the unpleasant actions of the team or ambassador. Protest votes show the team that it is underworking and needs to work harder. For example, the constant price decreases, the absence of agreements to increase TVL, the absence of the promised TVL increase in the ICO process, and a racist statement by a moderator towards Turks are the reasons why I continue my protests. All my protests are well-intentioned and aimed at improving the project. I also voted no in my proposal to cancel the 37th referendum. If I was a malicious person, don’t you think I would vote yes?
My thoughts on this referendum proposal;
You don’t want to hear any sentence criticizing you. It’s like turning off the telegram group to talk. Because you don’t care about democracy at all. I see it as an ill-intentioned offer to block the way for democracy. Keep talking by saying that we are not centralized. Who would believe? 
If you read my comment above my recommendation is to revise the bonding amount in the future to avoid small token holders to be excluded from creating proposals.
Rhano is in accordance with that
1 Like
Exactly, Ash. That’s one of the functions the council stands for
Hi @TurkValidator, thank you for contributing to the discussion.
Increasing the validator count by 40 is indeed a malicious proposal, in my opinion, and it could have potentially affected chain security. I guess we look at this situation differently, you and I, which is ok - there is room for disagreements in a democracy. And this is exactly why I bring it up here in the Forum and hear opinions of other community members - instead of going ahead and proposing the change on-chain straight away.
I don’t agree with this; the team is constantly working and the updates given on the Centrifuge chain is a testimony of that. Token price and progress are not always correlated so bringing a decrease in price is not relevant in this situation.
I am sorry to say, but voting no to your own proposal does not justify creating it in the first place.
This is not true either - right now you are voicing your opinion here in the Forum like everyone else. And in the end, the token holders will vote on this and we will have to accept the outcome, regardless of whether we agree or not.
I am glad to hear that you hold a lot of CFG - you picked a good project. However, it is also important to keep in my mind that if the council finds a proposal harmful to the network, they have the option to cancel it and in that case, the amount of self-bond will be forfeit (i.e. burned). So if someone has self-bonded 100 000 CFG to a proposal and the proposal is malicious, they will lose that CFG. That is also something to keep in mind.
1 Like
Merhaba Serkan. This proposal is malicious because it endangers the network’s stability.
[Proposal: Increasing the number of validators to 95]
You as a validator yourself should know that very well
1 Like
Thank for joining the discussion @MiniQ!
You bring up a good point in defining what makes a proposal malicious. It can be tricky to define some clear guidelines as to when a proposal is malicious - in most cases it comes down to common sense. But even common sense can appear to be very subjective. However, proposing something like increasing the amount of validators by 40 is an obvious attempt to harm the network, in my opinion.
Also cancelling a referendum that has already been discussed and voted on both off- and on-chain and passed with Super Majority Approval does not show good intentions either.
Not following the guidelines for governance is also a red flag in my book.
If you have any ideas to define what makes a proposal malicious to the network, please share them - because I do agree with you that it would be good to outline them. But in the end, this should not even be necessary as a common sense and the best interest in the network should prevail.
1 Like
I do not recommend this to the team. The centrifuge’s reputation will be damaged, and it may even go into the delist process. it may cause problems for the centrifuge project legally. Your confiscation of tokens is in no way acceptable.
I hope you realize this is a protest. So there is no chance that the proposal will pass. Of course, other reasonable proposals were not protests.
You think like Polyanna. You’re pretty optimistic, but you need to look at the statistics.
I suggest you look at tvl and token price. Tvl does not increase as it says and the token price is below the ico price.
Again, I do not agree with you on this matter - so I we will just have to agree to disagree.
Of course the council will not just cancel proposals because they don’t agree with them - there has to be a really good reason to do it. And securing the stability of a blockchain that is crucial for financing real world assets is a very legit reason, in my opinion.
Again, we don’t agree on this - but thank you for contributing to the discussion. Your opinion is just as important as anyone else’s.
1 Like
Good day MiniQ.
Increasing the amount of self-bond up to 1000-5000 CFG will only benefit the Centrifuge network and protect all users.
As you know every new proposal and referendum should be firstly discussed on the forum (check our guidelines please. These is common rules that have a most project).
And I would like to emphasize that every CFG holder could start this discussion even if he doesn’t have the requested amount to create the proposal/referendum on-chain.
After discussion on the forum in case of good feedback any other Users, Councilors, Team members could create this proposal instead of a topic starter. And also will permit have a high chance that crated proposal/referendum will be passed successfully and will be supported by the community!
This way permits not only to save your CFG (prevent forfeit CFG amount in case of cancellation), but also permit to get community support, healthy dialog on the forum.
So in my opinion increasing of minimal amount will only benefit all and permit to protect the network.
2 Likes
I also thank you. The suggestion is not helpful in my opinion. I hope it will be useful for the project.
1 Like
In general, governance proposals are a good opportunity to educate the community or clarify confusion. Just because a proposal isn’t well-researched, or isn’t in the long-term interest of the community, doesn’t make it malicious. Similarly, protest proposals may have a signal value to the community that should be respected. I believe more Centrifuge participants would like to be validators.
I am philosophically against high transaction costs / capital requirements of governance.
However, a proposal should require enough staked CFG for it to sting a little bit if you get slashed. The current threshold clearly doesn’t meet that hurdle.
2 Likes
Thank you for your contributions to the discussion.
I have now created a poll that you can vote on here.
1 Like
Hi Rhano. Thanks for the proposal. Shouldn’t this made for bonding of AIR as well in the corresponding Altair governance process? 
Hi Tjure, if the amount of self-bond should be increased on Altair as well (it is currently 500 AIR), then a separate RFC and proposal should be made in the Altair governance section.
Whether a similar change should be made on Altair, is up to the community to decide. The reason behind proposing the increase on Centrifuge chain was to minimize spam proposals.
Since I haven’t seen any of them on Altair, I personally don’t think that it is necessary at the moment. But I am not the only voice here so maybe make a temperature check in the Altair Governance section to see what others think?
1 Like
You are right. Currently the amount of on-chain proposals on Altair chain is manageable. Once more proposals will be delivered we should keep an eye on the amount of self-bonding if the current value is reasonable
1 Like