Budget System v2 - Irrevocable multi-month contracts

raganius said:
Sure.

There must not be irrevocable contracts.
Click to expand...


I'd agree but at the same time I'd be wary of trying to make too many hard and fast rules on how contracts are formed. If masternode operators where given a choice between two almost identical contracts but one allows termination and the other doesn't I'm sure the one that allows termination is the only one that would pass and feel the same thing should play a large role in the formation of contracts, what the masternodes favour rather than trying to build the ideal system from scratch.

Something I feel is very important is machine readable (and constructable) contracts, this could be the beginning of an automation process in the budgeting system and could expand in all kinds of directions in the future.
 
I just thought of something. What if irrevocable contracts were required to be administered by the Dash Foundation? If there were a problem, and the contractor was not doing their job, the Foundation can withhold payment.

Or is that what you all are saying? Then it requires actual written contracts signed by both parties, etc.... ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think what we are saying is that there is no such thing as a "contract" with the network, at least not a legally binding one, and we don't want to make budget items irrevocable in the protocol either. However, in order to get things done in the real world there does often need to be a real contract, and that contract can be written such that it is void if the network defunds the proposal.
 
TanteStefana said:
I just thought of something. What if irrevocable contracts were required to be administered by the Dash Foundation? If there were a problem, and the contractor was not doing their job, the Foundation can withhold payment.

Or is that what you all are saying? Then it requires actual written contracts signed by both parties, etc.... ?
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

In an ideal world, all agreements would be directly between the vendor and the network, and all payments would go directly from the block reward to the vendor. However, this might not always be possible, due to regulations, legal structures, or just the preference of the vendor. In those cases, there needs to be some written contract between the vendor and some representative of the network, but at the very least that contract should note the approval/cancellation mechanisms in the Budget System. Even then the payment would be directly to the vendor from the network with no intermediary.
 
ericsammons said:
I think these thresholds for passage are very reasonable. But I would propose something very similar to cancel a multi-month contract, perhaps like the following:
  • If less than 3 months remain on a contract, cancellation must be voted on by at least 20% of the network.
  • If less than 6 months (and more than 3) remain on a contract, cancellation must be voted on by at least 33% of the network.
  • If less than 12 months (and more than 6) remain on a contract, cancellation must be voted on by at least 51% of the network.
Once these minimum voting thresholds are met, contracts will be considered “cancelled” if at least 76% of the votes cast are “no” votes.

So you can see cancelling a multi-month contract would be quite difficult, as it should be. For really the only reason to do so would be in cases of fraud, complete incompetence, or the death of the other party. This would allow vendors to enter into multi-month contracts with the Dash network with confidence, yet also with the realization that their contract could be cancelled if they really drop the ball.
Click to expand...
I think we should rise 10% net negative votes limit in order to exclude bumpings out of proposals (which happened with Change-X11), especially multi-month ones. If there are too many spam proposals (there is low possibility of that with 5 DASH cost anyway) masternodes could use some filtering features in dashwhale.org as in reddit.com (filtering by new, rated, hot, most commented, controversial, etc).

BTW, http://dashvotetracker.com/ seems to show strange items (like 'Dash.org domain name' with payment # 5/4) after the last funding round occured.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top