Thank you but you're spamming now, it was not spam as you felt

We can additionally increase the TX fee for opening refs. Or ask UIs not to show refs that do not have DD placed.

[@Oliver ⚡/ggwpez](F2jgWXy7X8GQ2ykf1UGrsCXRERZvjEcd2aDf39fMf3BWVy6-kusama) In the linked post I do mention that about the UIs, I think proposals without decision deposit can be consider a  WIP so they should get less relevance.

It does nothing. It can be 100000 KSM and spam proposers can still create referenda without placing any decision deposit. A high or low decision deposit is irrelevant to any governance spam issue on Polkadot governance. 
I you want to get that in control of that spam as well as other speculative and aggressive referenda, the better solution would be to reduce the waiting time for the decision deposit so they time out sooner and voters are less bothered by speculative proposers. Something like one day or 12h for both Kusama and Polkadot would be a good solution.

I do not fully understand the need for this proposal. Democracy, true democracy, must tolerate other opinions. Unconditionally.

What I also don't understand is why you're focusing on a fee increase that won't generate any profit. Neither financially nor ideally. You are ruling out more new ideas, and only because the person behind it is committing the crime of not having enough KSM. That's disgusting.

There is a very good proposal right now (WFC KIRA) that focuses on the real problems and how to solve them.

If you want to make Kusama better, get involved there, olanod!

[@Cdyg...b94n](Cdyg7EabA46dz2CwaVLh13Ys6bb9TpYhZcF1WhRzav6b94n-kusama) Hi! This proposal is not trying to silence opinions or anything, but it does set a higher bar that hopefully is well balanced to not be too high to allow pretty much anyone convinced that their proposal is well meant can propose without problems. I personally get often rejections and this will affect me but I think it's still a good number that can push us to put more effort on our proposals.

BTW, for any rejected or timed out proposal this ref does generate profit as it allows anyone to "collect" reserved funds from proposers to be sent to the treasury get them burned.

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our **first** vote on this proposal is **NAY**.

The **Wish For Change** track requires **60% quorum** according to our [voting policy v0.2](https://docs.permanence.io/voting_policy/voting_policy_v0.2.html), and any referendum in which the **majority of members vote abstain receives an abstain vote**. This proposal has received **two aye and three nay** votes from **ten available members**, with **three members abstaining**. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

> The proposal aimed to increase the submission deposit to 3.333 KSM to mitigate spam, but several concerns emerged during the discussion. Some members appreciated the intent to curb spam and recognized its potential benefits, while others deemed the amount excessively high, particularly as submission deposits could not be refunded. A few comments entertained the idea of a lower deposit, noting that a more modest figure might address spam without imposing undue financial burden. Overall, the community's input reflected a cautious stance on the measure, with many expressing reservations about its immediate implementation given the high cost relative to its intended purpose.

The full discussion can be found in our [internal voting](https://voting.opensquare.io/space/permanence/proposal/Qma99qiQ8vKeAijCLuWq57bVjJUzzD28FqwDbk46gv1vrv).

Please feel free to contact us through the links below for further discussion.

Kind regards, Permanence DAO Decentralized Voices Cohort IV Delegate 📅 [Book Office Hours](https://cal.com/permanencedao/office-hours) 💬 [Public Telegram](https://t.me/permanencedao) 🌐️ [Web](https://permanence.io) 🐦 [Twitter](https://twitter.com/permanencedao) 🗳️ [Delegate](https://kusama.subsquare.io/user/EicAs5s99x17qZcQzJMiBCfada9rGyEC6njfiBX3j2EPr9W/votes)

**JAM DAO** votes **NAY** on this proposal

The intent here is clear: reduce governance spam by raising the barrier to entry. But while the motivation is valid, the solution feels rushed.

Some JAM DAO members expressed concerns around a lack of data, the absence of a nuanced mechanism (like tiered deposits or reputation-based adjustments), and no clear modeling on the impact of such a change. One member suggested we explore long-term alternatives instead of blunt instruments that might discourage meaningful participation.

Without a broader strategy that considers reputation, UI improvements, or engagement incentives, this proposal risks overcorrecting and suppressing legitimate voices.

We’re voted NAY — spam mitigation is important, but it needs to be thoughtful, inclusive, and backed by data.

Following the poll in [this previous discussion](https://kusama.subsquare.io/posts/39) I propose we increase the submission deposit for all referenda to **3.333..KSM** as a way to mitigate spam on governance tracks. Additionally I propose the addition of an extrinsic that collects the locked submission deposits transferring them to a designated account like the the treasury or the upcoming *black hole*.

Adjusting the submission deposit