Budget Proposal - Proof of Labour

[toknormal]

What you are really going for here in this paper though is straight to the value, that you can prove that you in fact delivered the good or service that was valued by the community. Not sure what might make for a better term, but I think perhaps the term could be improved.

Yes, it's really "economic activity" in its most general description. But that's a bit of a crap term as well :smile:

Brainstorm time !!!

Proof of growth
Deed validation
Proof of Trade
Trade Metrology
Proof of Endorsement
Proof of Value
Exchange Validation
Proof of Commerce
Growth Metrology
Commercial Witness
Proof of Credit Deposition

My own favourite is "Commercial Witness" because that's basically what this "flowscript" system is. A blockchain-based, irrevocable testament to the fact that voluntary economic activity has taken place that was endorsed by 2 economically viable parties on the respective sides of the trade.

(And the fact that some credit money gets 'killed' in the process only fuels the metaphor :grin: )

 

[stan.distortion]

"Proof of trade" would probably be the closest imho Tok with maybe something like "proof of completed economic activity" as another. I'd put a lot of focus on value being both created and destroyed as value long since gone but still lingering around in the system is a recipe for disaster.

 

[toknormal]

By the way, for anyone like myself who was previously unfamiliar with the term, "flow scrip" is not a mistranslation/misspelling of "flow script".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrip

Nice find ! i thought it was a misspelling as well. Never heard of that word.

 

[TanteStefana]

The schools are always selling grocery store scrip or scryp to raise money around here. You buy 200 from the school and they get a % of the value, and you can spend them like cash at the grocery store. Actually, I haven't seen it in a while, wonder if they still do that?

So anyway, Julio and Oscar, looking forward to your next installment of ideas!!

 

[xdashguy]

I am voting no. This proposal does not benefit Dash and it likely will never have concrete benefits. it is a very good idea and there should be a coin that does it. Maybe Dash will even do something similar some day. The issue with this is that it is 1) a research proposal 2) the results of the research proposal will not benefit Dash.

The purpose of the Dash budget should be to improve Dash specifically (not crypto in general). The Dash budget should not be used to benefit crypto in general or other alt coins. It should be used to specifically benefit Dash. This research proposal likely will never provide a benefit for Dash. Even if it someday might, its conclusions will benefit all cryptocoins, so its benefits are not specific to Dash. As a result, this should be funded by a university, a company, or someone else with a general interest in Crypto. The Dash network should have an interest in Dash specifically.

Research should be done by people who are passionate and not looking for money. Paying someone to do research they don't want to do will not work. Someone who has a real interest in a topic will research it whether paid or not. A lot of work and research has already went into this proposal. The authors will continue this whether it is funded or not if they really have an interest in it.

The proposal has the air of someone who first thought of an idea and then later threw Dash in to get blockchain money. I do not think this idea relates to Dash specifically. I think the authors have done great work and I commend them on that. However. the truth is, they are hoping to exploit the budget system in Dash to fund general cryptocrurency research. If Dash did not have a budget system that could provide them money, then I doubt Dash would have been mentioned in the paper at all.

Finally, Dash needs results, not research. Dash has a LOT of things that can be improved right now that are currently actionable. There is no reason to fund a general research project that may or may not ever provide any ROI and is not specific to Dash. Dash has a very limited budget. That very limited budget should be used on the very high priority items that can improve Dash in the near-term and drive adoption. This is not one of those items.

 

[raganius]

Dash needs results, not research

I agree with every other ideas you brought in your last post, with the exception of what's quoted above.

I understand that the specific case of the "proof of labour" concept would be better fit to an altcoin, alien to DASH (maybe, a sidechain, if so), and that it would make little sense for DASH to be funding it (especially because there's a limited budget... that always needs to be well spent)...

But I don't agree that DASH does not need research:

The thing is that I don't really agree with the notion that one would necessarily dedicate himself, doing serious research for free simply because the research is "on topics he loves". If that was true, big companies would not spend so much on their research teams and projects.

Even researchers need incentive... and in this world we live, love is not always enough incentive.

IMHO, DASH does need research if it wants to stay alive in the long term, among this ever (fast) developing crypto environment. But, indeed, I agree that DASH only needs (and should only fund) research projects that brings direct potential benefits to the DASH system itself (a good example would have been this one).

 

[toknormal]

I am voting no. This proposal does not benefit Dash and it likely will never have concrete benefits.

I'm afraid I have to respectfully but wholeheartedly disagree with almost everything said in this post.

First of all, from what sectors do we think Dash adoption is going to come ?

I only see 3:

[1] - as a hedge to Bitcoin
[2] - as a retail medium
[3] - as a monetary base with which to capitalise new economic models

Thats it. I don't see any others of significance.

As far as [1] goes, we're already there. You can basically assume that most of Dash's current marketcap comes from that source. As for [2], forget it. Dash is not competitive in that sector and never will be for 2 reasons:

a) it's not a crypto reserve like Bitcoin (i.e. prices across the board are not denominated in Dash, they're denominated in Bitcoin or Fiat)
b) it doesn't have any distinctive properties that make it preferable over any other denomination for retail

So that leaves [3]. Serving as a monetary capital base and this is indeed where Dash can score IMO. It has superb monetary properties that are likely to consolidate its identity, integrity and value over time and potentially qualify it as a low tier capital asset - albeit in fledgling economic models initially.

likely will never have concrete benefits

Did you actually try to calculate the potential "concrete benefits" ? I did (try, at least) - see bottom of message :wink:

If a mere 10 flowscrip mini-economies were established somewhere in the world, each having a turnover of just half a million dollars and a monetary velocity of 4 (more than double the $USD velocity) and a full reserve ratio (thats still 33% less than Bitshares) then that would require a capitalisation of 173,000 (173 thousand) Dash at current exchange rates. Thats 3% of the entire coin supply - just to capitalise 10 micro flowscrip economies the size of 15 staff salaries each. That amount of Dash isn't available so the price would have to skyrocket a bit to meet the equivalent dollar liquidity requirement with a smaller quantity of Dash.

If even one such micro-economy (it could be a school parents association for that matter) is shown to be successful then you can be sure there'll be a lot more than 10.

its conclusions will benefit all cryptocoins, so its benefits are not specific to Dash

That isn't what the proposers said. They were clear and unambiguous in their assertion that Dash in particular lent itself to the flowscrip model due to its ability to support the decentralised allocation of funds. So what if the research potentially benefits crypto in general ? ALL the efforts made in this sector do cos it's all open source.

I don't understand how we can afford to dismiss a proposal that comes under the one category of the above three where there's currently ZERO progress. What do we do then ? - wait for another crypto to research it and then steal their research because we were to skinflint to fork out a measly 1k Dash for nearly 6 month's work that's potentially of a strategic nature ?

To me, this proposal is the most no-brainer yes vote on that entire list. I'd gladly sacrifice the whole lot just to get this one passed - at least at this research stage. Lets see what the options are after that once the results are delivered.