I agree that increasing might be good, as the reimbursement for the refund agent could be very high in the worst case and it would be very bad if we would delay a cycle and increase volatility risk in such a case. It can be changed by max. 2 times, so 400 000 would be max change in once vote.

I agree to this proposal, reaching BSQ max issuance would be very bad for Bisq, as all CR would be resubmitted next cycle leaving a big backlog.

Maybe high stakeholders also can support Bisq by working for free until revenues get higher. Free work
by stakeholders pays double, as protecting an investment and as not inflating BSQ.

They could work for free or not work at all. DAO was created to pay for their work in case some of them wanted to be paid for it, Bisq just needs to control BSQ issuance to keep BSQ being valuable.

I guess Bisq will be always open to altruistic contributors.

How about enforce this by not compensating high stakeholders in hard times like this?

From what I've seen, some of the biggest Bisq stakeholders are also the most altruistic ones.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we actually issue more BSQ. As I understand it, this proposal is intended as a safety measure to handle future cycles of high issuance.

As the value of BSQ has been falling it's quite reasonable to increase the max issuance to at least keep it at a stable level value wise. I also agree that hitting the ceiling would be quite bad for the DAO as an event, and then there would be the backlog to deal with. Better be proactive an raise the limit as this limit was only introduced to limit damage from bugs rather than meant as a tool to limit the budget.

This parameter was added for security to limit max. possible damage of issuance per cycle not as limit in an economic sense.

Isn´t an extremely harsh measure to reject all compensation requests when compensation is greater than "BSQ max issuance" parameter? Wouldn´t it be more reasonable in that case to proportionally readjust down the compensation to everyone?

If this is feasible, then the "BSQ max issuance" parameter could work as a general budget limit that can be proposed and voted on each cycle for the next one.

@mpolavieja That would be a hard fork. For not upgraded nodes they would see all compensation requests rejected if more than max value was requested while newer nodes would see valid BSQ created.

I don't think this is worth a hard fork. It's also not trivial to make changes to the DAO in itself, not considering it would be a hard fork.

@mpolavieja This limit was added as security measurement to limit max. issuance in case of a security flaw. It was not intended to use it as limitation for management decisions (who much Bisq wants to spend).

Also we should consider the DAO not as a subject for changes. We don't have the dev resources and any change carries high risk which mostly is not justified by the requested change. Bug fixes are an exception but also only if they are critical.

Closing as approved by DAO voting - Cycle 9