• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Dash Nation Consensus Discussion

TheDashGuy said:
Where is the official organization chart? The Dash DAO structure explanation? The onboarding for such a setup?

You can't just slap a title on your guys group an call it a DAO because volunteers can jump in and help. Thats just called volunteering.
Click to expand...

That is the beauty of this project. We don't need, or want at this point, any of that. We self-organised and keep self-organising organically. We don't micro-manage. This is how it's been working so far, and quite well. Because all of the team, without exception, naturally coordinates itself quite proficiently without much need of policing.

Unlike a regular centralised organisation. We are efficient because we all have a solid background in various fields, years of professional experience, many of us in high responsibility an accountability positions, and understand how to behave in a professional context and how to maintain a rock-solid work ethic.

We have no ego trips within. There are no conflicts within. There is no divise. Its astonishingly and amazingly coherent. It almost as if we're a hippy tree hugging family. We don't all bow before each other and at the magnificent awesomeness of Evan All Mighty... no, we do recognise and follow his vision - as you guys are or you would not be here.

Or maybe you are for another reason, but I'd like to think otherwise. And why do I say this? Because you simply don't quit !

.
 
I will try to share some more of my thoughts (and get back to work - the more time I spent on the forum, the less time I can spent working ;) - discussion about work is not necessarily work)

@TheDashGuy - I guess you need to decide whether you hate corporations and consider everything coming from there is a pure evil or you want structures, announcements, position descriptions, processes how to join etc.
Anyway - I'll try to share something about this below.

@TaoOfSatoshi
I find your list of negatives objectionable. Let me explain it further (in blue color):

- The level of communication between core team and community (currently being worked on by myself and @yidakee).
I believe that level of communication is quite good but it simply does not meet expectations of people who spent most of their productive time on the forum. These people will never be satisfied, no matter what you do. At the moment we have:
Still think that it is a concern? This is quite good reporting and communication in my opinion (even considering high corporate standards). Are you able to find this level of professional communication in any crypto-project? Of course we can do better (there is always area for improvement) - I just doubt that we would be able to satisfy those, who are unsatisfied at the moment.

- The lack of consensus (voting) required to be on the core team.
Total misunderstanding in my opinion. How could voting improve anything in the team structure or effectiveness? Teams should be self-organizing (at least at our current status) to be more effective. Are you able to force anyone in a team full of volunteers to work with someone they don't want to work with? Or to say how should they work? Just because you vote on this... hmm... I guess it won't work.

- The lack of guidance from the core team to those who may wish to join it such as @TheDashGuy (and have a case to do so).
This is how I see the current status of our DAO:
Structure.png

- it means few teams working on common goals. Core team is one of them. We are available on forums, Slack, our emails are not secret. How to join the team? Read what we do, if you want to do similar stuff and you have skills - contact me or anyone else from the team and offer your help. If you have an idea on how to improve the work of the team - do the same. I joined exactly this way - contacted @splawik21 and @Minotaur and offered my help.

- The lack of clearly defined roles for the core team, masternodes (investors), professional contributors, and the overall community.
Again, you want this corporate stuff or not? Make your decision ;). I think the current model is simple - open-source project model (as already mentioned):
  • Core-team + professional contributors contribute to the project (because they want to :))
  • Masternodes (investors) provide infrastructure for Dash and budget for projects (project sponsor role).
  • Community - supports contributors
Do we really need anything more complicated now?

I agree we should prepare the project for future challenges and growth. To do this, there is a need to "hammer out an organizational chart that features people attaining positions" - well said. However first, there is a need for basic understanding that we are not reinventing the wheel and we should learn from best practices even if they are coming from corporations. Project management, finance management, accounting, vendor management, sales, support teams, development teams, marketing etc - this is something that we don't need to create from scratch just because we are DAO. We simply need to adopt them in the most effective way.

Ufff... I guess I need to start a blog to keep everything of this in a single place...
 
Last edited:
@kot Thank you for your well thought out reply. To be clear, I wasn't specifically asking for something more complicated per se, and agree you can't please everyone. But what would go a long way is clear definition of roles in our ecosystem, specifically masternodes.

Focusing on Masternodes: What should the masternodes be allowed to have control over? Are they simply in control of budgeting? If so, voting on the blocksize increase falls well out of their intended purpose, and should not have been done. If they can, as investors, have say in technical development, then this vote was warranted and future votes on technical issues can be allowed. We can't cherry pick technical votes. They either can vote on them, or not.

This is an example where clear defining of roles is needed, to avoid misunderstanding in the future.

What is the role of Masternodes?
 
@tao - again?

Evan proposed to blocksize increase through the budgeting system as a show of faith that he DOES want Masternodes to have a say in certain aspects of Dash development. Just like previously with the rebrand, he put it in the hands of the community before DGbB. Your question has been answered before. Masternodes primarily control the use of funds. He absolutely can "cherry pick" technical votes.

.
 
I appreciate the actual attempts to educate me on how you both see things @kot and @yidakee.

I guess we just have fundamental differences in our goals within a decentralized community. I want to help others around the world and I don't see how we can do that and fulfill a full on financial revolution without giving people the proper guidance to get involved, and by proper I mean extensive.

Maybe that should be something @tungfa can assist with since most of his 'job' rallies around knowing what others do and how to get them to jump in and help out or perhaps @kot you would be useful there being as you have knowledge about everyone and the hierarchy and routes it would take to go from 'zero to hero' if you will without fumbling around on google and in dashtalk wasting energy looking for how to help out, and being forced to wait until you have spent months just posting on the forums until someone asks you for help.

All im saying is our current "setup" is very lacking. We have PLENTY of room for improvement.
 
TaoOfSatoshi said:
@yidakee So, Dash is really all about Evan and the trolls are right? I'm very surprised at your answer.
Click to expand...

I don't know why your are surprised, myself and a few others have already answered the same question a couple of times with the same answer.
Dash is 100% about Evan's vision at this point in time, and we're all very glad it is. Just like Bitcoin was all about Satoshi and the people who believed in him and followed his lead and contributed, until he disappeared.

Evan will inevitably disappear one day. He's building a system that guarantees continuity when that happens. Nothing about this is new or has changed since he announced 2 years ago he'd quit his job and dedicate ate least 2 years full time to set this up and see what happens. Look at the result!

We are doing things right we believe. Whoever doesn't agree can always fork the code and take it in an entirely different direction. I don't see where the issue is.

I firmly believe all this emotion is part trolling, part divisive/disruptive tactics, and plain ignoring the clear path that has been set long ago. This is not a fun project like Dogecoin. We have serious entrepreneurial objectives.

.
 
yidakee said:
I don't know why your are surprised, myself and a few others have already answered the same question a couple of times with the same answer.
Dash is 100% about Evan's vision at this point in time, and we're all very glad it is. Just like Bitcoin was all about Satoshi and the people who believed in him and followed his lead and contributed, until he disappeared.

Evan will inevitably disappear one day. He's building a system that guarantees continuity when that happens. Nothing about this is new or has changed since he announced 2 years ago he'd quit his job and dedicate ate least 2 years full time to set this up and see what happens. Look at the result!

We are doing things right we believe. Whoever doesn't agree can always fork the code and take it in an entirely different direction. I don't see where the issue is.

I firmly believe all this emotion is part trolling, part divisive/disruptive tactics, and plain ignoring the clear path that has been set long ago. This is not a fun project like Dogecoin. We have serious entrepreneurial objectives.

.
Click to expand...
I'm merely trying to ascertain who controls what, and who is responsible for what. My goal is clarification, and to create a team where everyone feels valued.

If the conclusion of this discussion is that Evan controls everything and we abide by his decisions, then to me this conversation is over. Is that really the case? I don't think so. Hence, the need for clarification.

Please do not question my motives. I bleed Dash, and believe deeply in everything I say in my posts.
 
I think what Tao might be getting at is that cherry-picking votes like that is a bit insulting to masternode operators when it means nothing. If controversial parts of the vision will just be implemented without a vote, and less controversial parts of the vision are taken to the masternode owners, as if core team is trying to make it seem like Masternodes have a say but they don't?

If the Masternode votes on things like block size are just to provide information to Evan as opposed to direction, then fine, if that's really where we are right now, but if so let's not call that particular vote an example of dgbb.
 
Last edited:
TroyDASH said:
I think what Tao might be getting at is that cherry-picking votes like that is a bit insulting to masternode operators when it means nothing. If controversial parts of the vision will just be implemented without a vote, and less controversial parts of the vision are taken to the masternode owners, as if core team is trying to make it seem like Masternodes have a say but they don't?
Click to expand...
This, exactly.
 
yidakee said:
I firmly believe all this emotion is part trolling, part divisive/disruptive tactics, and plain ignoring the clear path that has been set long ago. This is not a fun project like Dogecoin. We have serious entrepreneurial objectives.

.
Click to expand...

Stop. You act like you're the bigger person around here half the time, then the other half of the time you pull this shit. Noone is trolling. Just because someone disagrees with you, or in this case quite a few people do, doesn't make them trolls. Stop being a child.

Notice how noone calls any one of you trolls even though you guys are doing the same exact shit you keep complaining about.
 
TheDashGuy said:
Stop. You act like you're the bigger person around here half the time, then the other half of the time you pull this shit. Noone is trolling. Just because someone disagrees with you, or in this case quite a few people do, doesn't make them trolls. Stop being a child.

Notice how noone calls any one of you trolls even though you guys are doing the same exact shit you keep complaining about.
Click to expand...
I will add that "you guys" should mean @yidakee. The majority of people here have been very respectful and constructive.
 
I think its somewhere between the two opposing views expressed here. I'll explain:

  1. Evan created DASH and assembled a team
  2. He has led its development to where we are now
  3. DGBB has been implemented and is revolutionizing "open source projects" - i put it in quotes because what we have here is much than a "project"
  4. Evolution has been planned, from what I understand this was a collaborative effort by the dev team but led by Evan
What we have is a project with a "benevolent dictator" who has sown the seeds for decentralized governance. But that change, from an autocratic model to a decentralized governance model, is huge.

That change has started. Some would want that progress to go faster. But we do still have Evolution happening, the direction has been set and its a lot of work. The dev team, implementing the core technology of this thing we call Dash, is still run in an autocratic fashion, based on the vision of one person. The rest of the thing we call Dash, and there really is a lot of it, is starting to be governed in a decentralized manner using masternode voting.

We're doing decentralized governance, for some parts. Maybe one day we'll be ready for decentralized governance of the core product, but at the moment there is only one person with the vision for the future of that product.

There's no rush here, lets get it right.
 
Otaci said:
I think its somewhere between the two opposing views expressed here. I'll explain:

  1. Evan created DASH and assembled a team
  2. He has led its development to where we are now
  3. DGBB has been implemented and is revolutionizing "open source projects" - i put it in quotes because what we have here is much than a "project"
  4. Evolution has been planned, from what I understand this was a collaborative effort by the dev team but led by Evan
What we have is a project with a "benevolent dictator" who has sown the seeds for decentralized governance. But that change, from an autocratic model to a decentralized governance model, is huge.

That change has started. Some would want that progress to go faster. But we do still have Evolution happening, the direction has been set and its a lot of work. The dev team, implementing the core technology of this thing we call Dash, is still run in an autocratic fashion, based on the vision of one person. The rest of the thing we call Dash, and there really is a lot of it, is starting to be governed in a decentralized manner using masternode voting.

We're doing decentralized governance, for some parts. Maybe one day we'll be ready for decentralized governance of the core product, but at the moment there is only one person with the vision for the future of that product.

There's no rush here, lets get it right.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with this. No rush or timeline at all, but it's great we're having this discussion. When the time comes to perform this transition, we will have a wealth of input to forge our new organization from. Thanks for that post.
 
All I've seen in this thread was was an initial request for clarification, which has been given numerous times by a few people. You guys simply do not accept the answers given, which are nothing new.

You keep trying to spin things around your way, simply not acknowledging the status-quo of how things are being developed. You keep on pushing your agenda and crying for clarification, which has been given times and times over, but simply don't accept and keep asking the same thing over and over again. What would you call this sort of directed and concerted denial?

Guys, read back from post #1 and assess your demeanour. No matter how hard you try you're not going to swing this your way by the simple tactic of repetition until exhaustion. I've been here and at this for 3 years and what is happening here is not new. You're disserving Dash. Debate is good, this has long past that stage.

If you disagree so strongly, you are more than welcome to do something about it. But spreading innuendo and trying to pin it on me or any other team member simply wont work. If you feel so strongly about this put your "money where your mouth is" and prove us all wrong. If you can do better, please show us.

It is not my opinion, or my will, or my say, that dictates who is who and what is what about DGbB. I'm just participating in this grand self-organising project. It is what it is, you guys just don't like it. Well... tough luck. At this point I don't know what more to say except, well ... tough luck


.
 
Last edited:
yidakee said:
If you disagree so strongly, you are more than welcome to do something about it.
Click to expand...

I wish you would not keep talking as if forking the code is the only thing that can be done by those of us who disagree. (If this isn't what you are referring to, please correct me.)
And it's not even that I disagree with the accuracy of the governance or power structure you are describing as the model of the current system.

What is the purpose of a masternode vote on project direction such as the block size vote? Is it to gather information only? There is nothing currently built into the protocol that makes a masternode vote such as this enforceable, but if we have a 'benevolent dictator', can we get a statement from project leaders on how they intend to respond to such votes, if at all? Does it make a difference if the proposal is initiated by the core team or from the outside? Is the project team willing to alter their behavior, for example, to delay an attempt to push a protocol version update in mainnet, if there is a masternode initiative with sufficient support? Evan obviously has Dash's best interest at heart and is a very large stakeholder himself, so I do not think that Evan or project leaders would *want* to try to push out an update that is unpopular with other stakeholders. But the reality is, if the core team decided to release an update anyway (or do so without being aware of / without allowing time for masternodes to initiate a proposal and vote), then the masternodes are incentivized to update as soon as possible even if they don't support the protocol change (out of fear that they will be left out of receiving payments), and at the same time miners won't care as long as they can still mine. Maybe we just let everything be and "what will happen will happen", but I don't see that scenario as being good for DASH. I would say that such a scenario is unlikely but I just don't know that. Looking to this discussion to take preventative measures so that everyone knows what to expect from Evan, and the core team, and the community.
 
yidakee said:
All I've seen in this thread was was an initial request for clarification, which has been given numerous times by a few people. You guys simply do not accept the answers given, which are nothing new.

You keep trying to spin things around your way, simply not acknowledging the status-quo of how things are being developed. You keep on pushing your agenda and crying for clarification, which has been given times and times over, but simply don't accept and keep asking the same thing over and over again. What would you call this sort of directed and concerted denial?

Guys, read back from post #1 and assess your demeanour. No matter how hard you try you're not going to swing this your way by the simple tactic of repetition until exhaustion. I've been here and at this for 3 years and what is happening here is not new. You're disserving Dash. Debate is good, this has long past that stage.

If you disagree so strongly, you are more than welcome to do something about it. But spreading innuendo and trying to pin it on me or any other team member simply wont work. If you feel so strongly about this put your "money where your mouth is" and prove us all wrong. If you can do better, please show us.

It is not my opinion, or my will, or my say, that dictates who is who and what is what about DGbB. I'm just participating in this grand self-organising project. It is what it is, you guys just don't like it. Well... tough luck. At this point I don't know what more to say except, well ... tough luck


.
Click to expand...
In the last couple of days alone, I have accomplished the following for Dash:

Started a discourse with you about a communication improvement in the community, aided in the discussion about the development of retail solutions in FSP, fought trolls on BCT to make it a better place to attract people to the community, helped the Stack Exchange initiative, continued my PR work on Twitter and my website, and accepted approximately 20 people into Dash Nation, continued an honest discussion here about the present and future of Dash. That on top of raising a daughter and paying attention to my wife.

When I'd like to have a conversation about possible improvements to our organization, I don't deserve to be painted with the brush you're painting me with.

Please, re-read my posts. I'm being nothing but diplomatic, never engaged in ad hominem attacks, listened to both sides, and articulated my thinking.

This is a discussion that needs to happen, for now and for the future. Our path can be easier if we achieve consensus among us on how to proceed, with the mindset that we are trying to create digital cash with decentralized governance.

Does it have to happen today? No, but it needs to happen eventually, and we will be that much farther ahead by this thread of input.
 
TaoOfSatoshi said:
This is a discussion that needs to happen, for now and for the future. Our path can be easier if we achieve consensus among us.
Click to expand...

YOY HAVE TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS NOT ONLY AMONG YOU, BUT ALSO AMONG YOU AND THE FUTURE GENERATIONS OF DASH, THE NEW COMERS.

This is the real consensus. You always forget future dash generations, when talking about consensus.

CONSENSUS IS SPACE TIME RELATIVE.
 
TroyDASH said:
I wish you would not keep talking as if forking the code is the only thing that can be done by those of us who disagree. (If this isn't what you are referring to, please correct me.)
And it's not even that I disagree with the accuracy of the governance or power structure you are describing as the model of the current system.
Click to expand...

Its is not the disagreeing, it's the blind beating of a dead horse that I am referring too. In particular discussion, answers have been given but not accepted and keep getting beaten and facts are simply not accepted. In this case, yes, forking is the only solution for the discontent.

What is the purpose of a masternode vote on project direction such as the block size vote? Is it to gather information only?
Click to expand...
Yes.

There is nothing currently built into the protocol that makes a masternode vote such as this enforceable, but if we have a 'benevolent dictator', can we get a statement from project leaders on how they intend to respond to such votes, if at all?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what has been happening thus far. You should be more attentive.

Does it make a difference if the proposal is initiated by the core team or from the outside?
Click to expand...

No. You can submit anything at anytime.

Is the project team willing to alter their behavior, for example, to delay an attempt to push a protocol version update in mainnet, if there is a masternode initiative with sufficient support?
Click to expand...

Didnt fully follow the logic there. Votes on behaviour are not vinculative at all. Only funds. And only Evan is able to merge requests onto github. And once again, currenly Masternode hold the strings to the project's funds, not the development roadmap decisions. That does not mean their opinions are not highly taken into consideration as was the blocksize vote an example. Masternodes can always protest by defunding the core team and funding a new one. You are more than welcome to submit such proposal and lobby for it. No harm at all.

Evan obviously has Dash's best interest at heart and is a very large stakeholder himself, so I do not think that Evan or project leaders would *want* to try to push out an update that is unpopular with other stakeholders.
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for someone else, I'm sorry

But the reality is, if the core team decided to release an update anyway (or do so without being aware of / without allowing time for masternodes to initiate a proposal and vote), then the masternodes are incentivized to update as soon as possible even if they don't support the protocol change (out of fear that they will be left out of receiving payments), and at the same time miners won't care as long as they can still mine. Maybe we just let everything be and "what will happen will happen", but I don't see that scenario as being good for DASH. I would say that such a scenario is unlikely but I just don't know that. Looking to this discussion to take preventative measures so that everyone knows what to expect from Evan, and the core team, and the community.
Click to expand...

If you actually listen and study Dash, you'll know that Evan has thought of that and has a plan to bring equilibrium of power regarding exactly that, and at the same time solve the 51% attack issue that plagues PoW coins. He has also solved the mining centralisation puzzle. So instead of trying to find problems, I suggest actually digesting what we currently have and see the strong points, and try to make a case for your worries on testnet. If you manage to break it, I guarantee new protocol will be delayed as long as the issues persist.

For the... I forget how many times now... this is how thing currently work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top