DeepBlue
Active member
Part 4: This post will discuss the concept of a Dash Decentralisation Charter (DDC) a document that stores Dash project core values, guiding principles, best practises, concepts and vision of the DASH cryptocurrency project. The DDC would be similar to the concept of the "Declaration of Independence" for the USA in which the Founding Fathers wrote out a set of guiding principles on which other decisions were made for the country. This document provided greater consistency in decision-making and was based on core values. The difference with the Dash Decentralisation Charter is that it will be a document that can be updated, modified and added to as required and it will contain working best practises based on passed learning experiences.
The DDC would be a valuable asset to the Dash network governance system that would be continually upgraded and updated to capture collective knowledge as DASH learns and evolves as a cryptocurrency.
One of the main challenges with a decentralised organisation is that many people have widely varying ideas about how things should be and work. This is beneficial in one respect, that there is a rich variety of ideas to call upon. However, at the same time, it can cause serious challenges in coming to a consensus on the best way to move forward. The DASH project needs to become more efficient in the way that it operates so that it is at least on a par with a centralise organization, but preferably exceeds it. In addition, since the DAO is a fluid organisation, meaning, MNOs come in and leave the organization, we need a way to capture the learnings and knowledge from MNOs that have been with the DASH project for a long time and have learned from the mistakes of past governance decisions. If we do not record these learnings and principles we will continually be having to battle out every idea and principle each time someone new comes into the community. What would be better is to work out Dash's values, and learnings, discuss them, debate them, then vote on each principle individually. If the principle received enough votes from the MNOs it would enter the DDC.
The DDC would be a controlled document in a source code management (SCM) system. However updates could only be made by getting enough votes for the principle to be updated. We would therefore need some form of SCM, like Git hub, but edits would only be sanctioned if there were enough votes to do so. This would prevent anyone from going in and changing the document without getting full decentralised agreement from the DAO on the changes to be made.
The DDC would act as a form of "Social set of programs" which the DAO could work to and refer to. The social programs would work in much the same way as software programs have a set of instructions for how a computer undertake actions. We could create a set of social decision-making principles that help guide MNOs and the community for governance decisions.
There would be a mechanism to discuss a principle that we feel ought to be added to the DDC. The principle would be debated upon and then we would have a voting system to decide if the principle should enter the Charter or not. If it receives a majority set of votes the principle would enter the charter for future reference for the MNOs and the DASH community.
At any time if a principle is found to be defective or require an update, or even removed, then the principle in the DDC can be singled out for reconsideration and discussion on what the defect is, and once again voted upon if the update to the principle should enter the charter or not. This is similar to how bugs are found and dealt with in software development. The bug is identified, worked on, code reviewed, and then merged with the parent source code.
If we could develop such a Charter it would help MNOs make better, more consistent decisions, in the governance system to ensure we meet with Dash's core values, goals and vision.
Each principle in the Charter would be a discreet unit principle and be assigned a unique Database ID number and hyperlink. In this way we could refer to a specific principle by ID in the Governance system when discussing a project that is up for funding. e.g. if there is a project that is not focused on what we have agreed are our target markets we could state something like the following. "The Dash DDC ID numbers 3 and 7 state that this project requires a business plan and that it needs to be focused on one of our target markets as defined by ID numbers 10 through to 20." If the MNO has a stronger argument than those already pre-agreed then we could consider updating the principle.
In addition each principle in the DDC would have a hyperlink to both the discussion and the voting results for that principle so that others, could, review at any time the logic of how the MNOs came to create and develop that principle.
It is important to emphasis that the DDC is only a guidance document and not a document written in stone. The DDC will be a fluid document that is updated, refined and improved over time as we learn. Once we have the DDC all good governance decisions would be of value and each bad decision would also be of value since we would learn from both. Unlike now, however, we are losing that experience and knowledge because we have not captured it and recorded.
The DDC would store the entire history of every version of the document for anyone to view at any time. Changes to a DDC principle in the document would only be possible through a vote, if the edit would modify the meaning or significance of the principle. Each change to the DDC would show the user that made the change, and the date and time the change was made. The SCM system would have a DIFF feature to enable a user to see the specific changes made between any version of the document.
A small group of elected MNO would be responsible for the maintenance and edits on the DDC and they can only act based on the results of votes from MNOs if the changes are to update a principle. In this way, the elected DDC team could make small corrections (Typos and formatting or clarifications) etc without having to have votes on small corrections each time. However, no changes could be made to the fundamental principle's meaning without a vote.
I would propose that the votes to determine if a principle will go into the DDC or not would not go through the normal governance system. We would need a custom discussion and voting system specifically created for the DDC. The reason for this is due to the large number of principles that would need to enter the DDC. It would not be cost effective to use the current governance system to develop such a charter. Instead a new type of decentralised voting system would need to be developed where a smaller fee of around $10 USD worth of DASH by the proposer of the new principle needs to be paid. The principle would enter into this specially designed system where it could be discussed, debated and then voted on. If the new principle receives enough votes for approval then it would enter into the DDC.
I would propose that the only people that could vote on the new principle would be MNOs. Therefore the DDC voting system would need to determine if someone has a valid masternode or not - rather like in Dashcentral now. MNOs only should be the ones to work on these principles to keep out trolls and also to ensure that only people with a significant financially interest in the DASH project would be able to decide what principles go into the charter. The rational being that those with the most invested financially are the ones that are most likely to want the best for DASH since they will have the most to gain (or lose).
The DDC would form a systematic means to capture our knowledge and experience as we develop as a project. It would form a valuable asset to help us make more sound consistent decisions and help there to be more harmony in the governance system and the community as a whole.
I would be interested to hear what other MNOs think about the concept of this DDC.
The DDC would be a valuable asset to the Dash network governance system that would be continually upgraded and updated to capture collective knowledge as DASH learns and evolves as a cryptocurrency.
One of the main challenges with a decentralised organisation is that many people have widely varying ideas about how things should be and work. This is beneficial in one respect, that there is a rich variety of ideas to call upon. However, at the same time, it can cause serious challenges in coming to a consensus on the best way to move forward. The DASH project needs to become more efficient in the way that it operates so that it is at least on a par with a centralise organization, but preferably exceeds it. In addition, since the DAO is a fluid organisation, meaning, MNOs come in and leave the organization, we need a way to capture the learnings and knowledge from MNOs that have been with the DASH project for a long time and have learned from the mistakes of past governance decisions. If we do not record these learnings and principles we will continually be having to battle out every idea and principle each time someone new comes into the community. What would be better is to work out Dash's values, and learnings, discuss them, debate them, then vote on each principle individually. If the principle received enough votes from the MNOs it would enter the DDC.
The DDC would be a controlled document in a source code management (SCM) system. However updates could only be made by getting enough votes for the principle to be updated. We would therefore need some form of SCM, like Git hub, but edits would only be sanctioned if there were enough votes to do so. This would prevent anyone from going in and changing the document without getting full decentralised agreement from the DAO on the changes to be made.
The DDC would act as a form of "Social set of programs" which the DAO could work to and refer to. The social programs would work in much the same way as software programs have a set of instructions for how a computer undertake actions. We could create a set of social decision-making principles that help guide MNOs and the community for governance decisions.
There would be a mechanism to discuss a principle that we feel ought to be added to the DDC. The principle would be debated upon and then we would have a voting system to decide if the principle should enter the Charter or not. If it receives a majority set of votes the principle would enter the charter for future reference for the MNOs and the DASH community.
At any time if a principle is found to be defective or require an update, or even removed, then the principle in the DDC can be singled out for reconsideration and discussion on what the defect is, and once again voted upon if the update to the principle should enter the charter or not. This is similar to how bugs are found and dealt with in software development. The bug is identified, worked on, code reviewed, and then merged with the parent source code.
If we could develop such a Charter it would help MNOs make better, more consistent decisions, in the governance system to ensure we meet with Dash's core values, goals and vision.
Each principle in the Charter would be a discreet unit principle and be assigned a unique Database ID number and hyperlink. In this way we could refer to a specific principle by ID in the Governance system when discussing a project that is up for funding. e.g. if there is a project that is not focused on what we have agreed are our target markets we could state something like the following. "The Dash DDC ID numbers 3 and 7 state that this project requires a business plan and that it needs to be focused on one of our target markets as defined by ID numbers 10 through to 20." If the MNO has a stronger argument than those already pre-agreed then we could consider updating the principle.
In addition each principle in the DDC would have a hyperlink to both the discussion and the voting results for that principle so that others, could, review at any time the logic of how the MNOs came to create and develop that principle.
It is important to emphasis that the DDC is only a guidance document and not a document written in stone. The DDC will be a fluid document that is updated, refined and improved over time as we learn. Once we have the DDC all good governance decisions would be of value and each bad decision would also be of value since we would learn from both. Unlike now, however, we are losing that experience and knowledge because we have not captured it and recorded.
The DDC would store the entire history of every version of the document for anyone to view at any time. Changes to a DDC principle in the document would only be possible through a vote, if the edit would modify the meaning or significance of the principle. Each change to the DDC would show the user that made the change, and the date and time the change was made. The SCM system would have a DIFF feature to enable a user to see the specific changes made between any version of the document.
A small group of elected MNO would be responsible for the maintenance and edits on the DDC and they can only act based on the results of votes from MNOs if the changes are to update a principle. In this way, the elected DDC team could make small corrections (Typos and formatting or clarifications) etc without having to have votes on small corrections each time. However, no changes could be made to the fundamental principle's meaning without a vote.
I would propose that the votes to determine if a principle will go into the DDC or not would not go through the normal governance system. We would need a custom discussion and voting system specifically created for the DDC. The reason for this is due to the large number of principles that would need to enter the DDC. It would not be cost effective to use the current governance system to develop such a charter. Instead a new type of decentralised voting system would need to be developed where a smaller fee of around $10 USD worth of DASH by the proposer of the new principle needs to be paid. The principle would enter into this specially designed system where it could be discussed, debated and then voted on. If the new principle receives enough votes for approval then it would enter into the DDC.
I would propose that the only people that could vote on the new principle would be MNOs. Therefore the DDC voting system would need to determine if someone has a valid masternode or not - rather like in Dashcentral now. MNOs only should be the ones to work on these principles to keep out trolls and also to ensure that only people with a significant financially interest in the DASH project would be able to decide what principles go into the charter. The rational being that those with the most invested financially are the ones that are most likely to want the best for DASH since they will have the most to gain (or lose).
The DDC would form a systematic means to capture our knowledge and experience as we develop as a project. It would form a valuable asset to help us make more sound consistent decisions and help there to be more harmony in the governance system and the community as a whole.
I would be interested to hear what other MNOs think about the concept of this DDC.
Last edited:
