Budget system needs non-technical help

[TanteStefana]

As a MNO, I'm very frustrated. I am not equipped to vote on proposals that have huge budgets that i can not evaluate. The problem is not deciding if we want something so much as how much it costs. How can we evaluate if the cost is reasonable?

But that isn't the worst of the problem. The worst of the problem is that "outsiders" come in haphazardly to offer their services, or their product, and we choose either yes or no, but there is no over all planning going into anything. Sure, Core has planning for what they are doing, but the rest of the budget is like spewing funds out with no logic behind it. It's stupid and wasteful.

And this is by far the worst for proposal owners. We cry from the top of the mountain "Anyone can make a proposal and get funding" Except no, they have to convince MNOs to vote yes, so they put up the $1500 in Dash to make a proposal, only to find out they can't pass, even when they make pre-proposals because nobody has the time or inclination to tell the proposer what when how why - what's needed to pass...

It's just too crazy at the level we've grown. This system is too simple, too open. We need to vote on people who can create a unifying vision, a plan to achieve it and......... oh wait a second, that sounds like Dash Core!

But Dash Core doesn't have the time.

This needs to be fixed. We can't go forward with who knows who coming to us to do who knows what with no plan, no vision, just a bunch of pieces floating around. Please, can we fix this?

 

[demo]

Oh yeah? really?
Have a look at my pre-proposals!

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-dash-to-fund-followmyvote.13074/
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...-way-to-propose-proposal-in-the-budget.12798/
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...-vote-then-take-into-account-only-mnos.12735/
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...-the-network-layer-from-the-vote-layer.12584/
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...d-the-masternodes-who-voted-for-it-pay.12369/
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/pre-proposal-would-you-like-to-be-able-to-vote-with-number.9081/
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...uch-do-you-pay-for-someone-to-do-a-job.15065/
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...ndividuality-to-be-implemented-in-dash.15946/
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...-in-the-deadline-then-let-anyone-do-it.16778/
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...asternodes-in-order-to-stop-governance.14484/


10 (out of the total 18) pre-proposals of mine address this very issue (and this is one of the reasons I received troll ratings)
Stupids and spies infiltrated dash for this exact reason, in order to prevent governance to evolve.

Spies have been instructed by their employers to destroy the DASH governance system, at all costs. And the easiest way to destroy the governance system of DASH is to make the governance questions too expensive. This is one of the reasons why DASH's dollar price increases. The employers of the spies tremble with fear when they realize that a cryptocoin will occur that will have effective governance, so they want to control it and intercept it, so they buy in order to gain voting rights and vote against whatever proposal is towards the effective governance goal.

 

[Gunna]

I'd like to propose a solution to this issue of bleeding cash and giving some more control back to the MNO's for payments. It's something I just thought of so it's just a general idea

Dash network has control of a hotwallet as well as the superblock.

Proposal put forward. Proposal for dash over X value in fiat must be split into staggared payments of 2 or more with clear deadlines. Once proposal is accepted 1st partial payment goes to Proposal owner with remaining amount transferred to a hot wallet.

MNO\Devs or some other party must review proposal close to deadline date. If they are happy with where the project currently sits then they do not need to do anything(they can vote yes if they want). If they are unhappy, vote to hold the funds for that proposal until next proposal payout round. I'd suggest a certain % of MNO votes are required to stall payment to prevent a single MNO from stopping the funds. Again, review and decide on next proposal round. If the proposal hangs for 5 rounds then the funds in the hot wallet are somehow distributed back into the pool of unspent proposal funds if possible.

MNO's need only vote if the proposal is not on deadline otherwise the proposal payment continues ahead

Proposals under a certain threshold(say $5000 worth of Dash as an example) are not required to follow the above guidelines

 

[TanteStefana]

I really think the solution is for the/a core team to manage the plan and hire contractors for the work we need done. Except that they would still be responsible to the Network. MNOs can vote to push in a different direction if they feel it's not going well, etc... but there has to be a "core" team for managing these funds and following a vision of some sort, not all this patchwork disorganized mess we're in now.

 

[camosoul]

The solution is a proportional payout. No superblock crap. None of this all or nothing bullshit. Votes dictate a priority. Vote a pay rate. Capped at 10%. Anything under stays in the blockchain/circulation where it belongs. Completely dynamic, block per block, no monthly silliness, no deadlines, no "locked in" nonsense.

The bottom line is no human intervention beyond the MNOs will result in a suitable system. It becomes subject to corruption.

Depriving the MNOs of the granular control they need also prevents them from learning. Its not an accident that a system with those flaws was chosen over a system that lacks those flaws... That corruption is far worse, yet is perpetuated without a single thought... No one cares, and there's nothing you can do about it anyway, The Usual Suspects have assured it.

 

[EazyDay]

@demo @Gunna @TanteStefana I am a new and actively looking for ways to contribute. Would you like to collaborate to design a system that works? I have a fresh set of eyes and plenty of free time.

 

[Gunna]

@demo @Gunna @TanteStefana I am a new and actively looking for ways to contribute. Would you like to collaborate to design a system that works? I have a fresh set of eyes and plenty of free time.

Happy to collaborate but without the core devs being prepared to change the platform I'm unsure how effective anything we decide to do would be. We really need input from the devs

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Happy to collaborate but without the core devs being prepared to change the platform I'm unsure how effective anything we decide to do would be. We really need input from the devs

Only if you want to modify the existing system. I don't see why we can't have a separate dash specific, multisig, crowd funding platform.

But if we do modify the existing budget system, I think we should do it in small increments.

 

[EazyDay]

Happy to collaborate but without the core devs being prepared to change the platform I'm unsure how effective anything we decide to do would be. We really need input from the devs

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

I was speaking about the non-technical aspect of writing a proposal. That would include abc which should include the process that you would use to communicate with the devs. They are busy and do not need to carve out time to deal with minutiae. Many of the problems that I saw with the proposals were " Solutions chasing a problem " and alignment with stated goals such as the Development road map that would result in a DIP from which they could actually work from. You identified a problem, that we have to articulate, if I understand your issue in the form of a question below?

Q) How do you change or reprioritize the development road map once it has already been agreed upon? IMO, this should be difficult to do, like changing the constitution in some ways. You could be changing the business model and that might have long term irreversible consequences.

 

[jimbursch]

Both @TanteStefana and @GrandMasterDash have a very good understanding of the problem and the solution.

but there has to be a "core" team for managing these funds and following a vision of some sort

I don't see why we can't have a separate dash specific, multisig, crowd funding platform.

The Core Team is a trusted organization by the MNO's and get's funded accordingly (pretty much anything Core wants Core gets). They have earned that trust.

Dash Force News is a trusted organization and gets fully funded.

The problem is that the budget far exceeds the needs of these trusted organizations.

What's needed are additional Trusted Organizations to fulfill different missions and the bulk of the budget should be flowing to those organizations.

An attempt was made to create a marketing organization, but the people involved in that attempt were unable to garner the required trust.

There is a very big opportunity here for the right people. I would be interested in taking on this opportunity if I didn't have my own projects that take up most of my time (Dash Messaging, Dash Bug Bounty).

Because the opportunity is huge, somebody will come along eventually to pick up the ball and run with it. Sometimes somebody will pick up the ball and drop it before making the goal. Then somebody else will try.

 

[EazyDay]

Trusted Organizations to fulfill different missions

What are these missions, where are they written down, could we substitute the word problem for the sake of conversation? Trusted Organizations formed to solve certain problems maybe?

You could weigh in on topic once a week or so! I am having a private conversation with five invited people. My intent is to make it a much larger conversation. I have no idea how to use this forum software to invite you into the conversation?

 

[jimbursch]

What are these missions, where are they written down

The MNO network is fundamentally reactive, not proactive. It's the nature of an anonymous democratic body. It can react to proposals (vote yea or nea) but it cannot make proposals.

The Core Team and Dash Force Nation have pretty clear self-defined missions that the MNO network has consistently endorsed by passing their proposals.

So, in answer to your question, there are no missions written down. An organization has to define its own mission and put it to the MNOs for approval.

I don't think we are dealing with "problems" -- every budget proposal is an ad hoc solution to a problem. What @TanteStefana and @GrandMasterDash are getting at is something bigger than ad hoc solutions.

I'm not really interested in private conversations. This needs to be discussed publicly -- it is how trust is developed.

If you would like to have a private conversation (and a profitable conversation!) contact me here:
https://d-msg.com/JimBursch

 

[EazyDay]

The conversation is on this forum and not really private, but smaller if that is a better word to keep down noise so I can keep track of who said what. After a couple of pages I loose track. I am educating some LEAN Black Belts offline and will soon bring them into the conversation online. They have no idea what blockchain and DASH is at this point?

 

[CaptainCalliope]

The lack of an overarching opt-inable strategy and planning is one of the major things that's had me concerned about the Dash network. Dash has a great core team but its lack of operational openness doesn't lend itself to participation of those outside the core team. Some of the biggest success stories in open source started as ad-hoc projects that gained definition, coherency, and structure over time. Mozilla for example is one such organization whose success stalled when their core organization closed itself off from its community and lost out on opportunities that come from continuously integrating centralized initiatives with ad-hoc projects. In more recent years, Mozilla has opened back up to incorporate community participation in its core processes and the pace of innovation has been picking up. They went from one extreme of openness to the extreme of closedness before aiming for a sweet spot between them.

My point here isn't that the Dash core team should open up and be more participatory, it's that ad-hoc projects become stronger when there's a trusted organization with a well articulated strategy they can align efforts with/around. Dash seems to be missing this sweet spot in the middle between a closed core team and fully ad-hoc efforts. This is where I see opportunity for a new sub-dao to work operationally. I have no specific bias towards what needs should be served by a new organization, but would like to see one emerge with a strong vision/mission and open processes that enable people to work together at varying levels of formality and informality.

As an aside, I see lots of conversations around needs and then conversations about solutions and processes. What I don't see happening around here are conversations about resources beyond the budget. Purpose-based organizations often form as a result of a community or network of stakeholders coming together and doing something like a 'barn raising', bringing what resources they have to build something greater than the sum of its parts.

What non-monetary resources are available that we can pool together and allocate to building together? I think this is a relevant question to this discussion because our governance structure will need to evolve when the core team succeeds in putting legal structures in place for the Dash network to own assets. Budget allocation is one thing, but how do we allocate other kinds of resources? And how do we do so in a way that honors our values of decentralization and network accountability? I think these are the kinds of questions new sub-daos will need to answer in the process of fulfilling whatever missions they have.

 

[MizzyMax]

I think a sponsorship program would be the best way to fund organizations.

For example if we have 4500 Treasury funds and 4500 masternodes, each masternode has 1 Dash to sponsor to groups of their choosing. They can choose to split it into several different areas or all in one group. If a masternode chooses not to sponsor anyone, it's 1 Dash is then dispersed among the other Masternodes.

In this system you use 100% of the funds available. Organizations who put in for getting sponsored won't need to pay anything to get listed. There will be no need to stop spam proposals because it will just be ranked by highest level of sponsorship proposals to lowest. Thus eliminating the need for a 5 Dash proposal fee.

I think the problem is we are thinking in terms of YES or NO, when we should only be thinking YES. There is no way to say no or downvote a proposal in this solution. also we could require a sponsorship to be paid out at a minimum of 30 Dash or so. This way masternodes can't just pay themselves every month, and if you had 30 masternodes I'd hope that 30 Dash a month isn't needed at that large of a wealth level. But that could be considered it's only downfall is masternodes wanting to pay themselves off. Other than that I think it would be s great solution, just a lot of work and code to make this work.

 

[TanteStefana]

The solution is a proportional payout. No superblock crap. None of this all or nothing bullshit. Votes dictate a priority. Vote a pay rate. Capped at 10%. Anything under stays in the blockchain/circulation where it belongs. Completely dynamic, block per block, no monthly silliness, no deadlines, no "locked in" nonsense.

The bottom line is no human intervention beyond the MNOs will result in a suitable system. It becomes subject to corruption.

Depriving the MNOs of the granular control they need also prevents them from learning. Its not an accident that a system with those flaws was chosen over a system that lacks those flaws... That corruption is far worse, yet is perpetuated without a single thought... No one cares, and there's nothing you can do about it anyway, The Usual Suspects have assured it.

As usual, you have made me see things completely in another light!

 

[TanteStefana]

I think what will happen is that core will expand to have different departments. Tech, marketing, X, Y, development, Z And these will handle the hiring of businesses to achieve the goals set forth. The funding would come directly from the blockchain as it is now, with MNs having to approve the budget that goes to these sections, and each section would have to keep accounts open (no mixing) and show how they're doing toward the goal set forth. But those teams would have multi sig accounts with a board for each section that has whatever rules to make payments based on progress of the businesses they imploy, including their employees.

I asked Ryan, and he kindly answered. this was his answer:

"tantestefana I think those types of ideas are great (when I mentioned nmonic's spaceX's example of competition) , but we need someone to drive it. Best person would be the "CFO" type, which is slated for hiring sometime this quarter or early next year. Higher priority is new hires for head of infrastructure, business development, and integrations, which are all underway. Until those are complete, our recruiting capacity (and onboarding capacity) on the business side is pretty full. We can only onboard people so fast since each major leadership position requires a lot of coaching / mentoring to properly bring new people into their roles successfully. Moving as fast as possible."

I think our extremely generous budget makes us all want to do great things with it (well, it makes ME want to do great things with it) but we hit physical limitations. We want to go the speed of light, but we're hitting the light barrier.

Anyway, per Camo, there comes a point of too much control where corruption can set in. However, we have tools to protect the network. Namely an open blockchain. And I am sure we will have watchdog groups around the world checking the books in the future. We have tools to keep this system on the up and up even though we have humans doing work.

Consiquently, I probably won't vote for huge projects anymore unless I really feel that it's something we really need and is obviously a decent price that I can understand. I have no problem paying going rates, or even 1st world going rates, but If I can't understand it, I'm not voting. Right now, I think our funds are best spent on grass roots efforts and anything better should go through core. Yes core, because frankly Ryan is a penny pincher, IMO, ROFL, and I trust him And I trust that we are coming up with great solutions (above) that can and will be hashed out in our global think tank and solutions will be found.

Right now, I only feel confident in voting yes for grassroots efforts.


Thanks you guys for bringing your ideas! I'm keeping this thread close to my heart and hope we'll continue to discuss these things. I apologize for disappearing. I am really busy with family in a very good way, nothing bad, just being a mommy and daughter to my mom, and enjoying it all, but busy as heck! Thanks for everyone's input, please keep going

 

[EazyDay]

but its lack of operational openness doesn't lend itself to participation of those outside the core team.

How or Dash compete in the Multiverse of blockchain platforms competing for market share without privacy and codewords like Skylake and Medusa?

What non-monetary resources are available that we can pool together and allocate to building together?

Capital has many forms. For example, Dash has attracted or ended up with certain set of people. What type of natural capital is that and how can we spend it?

it's that ad-hoc projects become stronger when there's a trusted organization with a well articulated strategy they can align efforts with/around.

That is what this discussion and my private conversation was about, creating the soil conditions for trust to be established around the people and validation of the idea being pushed. I am on a hunt for the language and the process to describe what that looks like.