Threshold
just for a begining, after diverses criteras of valuations to be determined by specialists seem necessary and suggest a temporality of try at verification all the year or by 6 or 3 month, but its optimitic and a good first step try.
And is a few amount of dot.
Because 4.96* 365 = 1810/YEARS 12.55 * 365 = 4580.75/YEARS so if estimate the minimum cost of Dot at 6 and 8 dollars in bear is correct because between 1810* 6 = 10860 dollars or 14480 * 8 and 4580.75 *6 = 27480 dollars and 36640 dollars * 8.
I do not take into account the future inflation effect about Agile Coretime update nor a non-sustainable effect accentuated by a bull market climax.
If stay thus, is the responsability of dev to convert if increase or decrease value of dot however. So manage yourself our budget.
Is not bad proposition.
Edited
I don't get this. Especially the bribe reward part. Someone votes to get your project funded via treasury and then gets rewarded for that? In other words I invest with money from someone else, but I get the rewards, if any. Or even more to the point:
I think a proposal similar to this might make sense for real common good (not for profit) projects, but anything that is for profit should just convince the same DOT holders to actually invest their DOT, not someone else's DOT. I really hope, I am misunderstanding something here, given that the proposal already passed.
I am not sure to understand the intention correctly. You mention that this could be a replacement for crowd-loans to gather project funding - yes. But how does it relate to treasury grants?
Getting a nomination-based % of inflation is not a very strong promise for grantees. I think in this case, it would still be better to have Treasury instalments, that pays out grants in chunks on a monthly basis. This still gives the Treasury the possibility to intervene on non-delivering projects.
Also what is the priority on this? Expected timeline? How important do the voters think this feature is on a scale 1/10?