Decision Proposal: Increase Proposal System Flexibility & Efficiency

In theory, even if DCG go ahead with Phase 2, we can still put together a competing proposal.

Can we have a more challenging proposal, that DCG must implement a dash price oracle? That would pave the way for rewards based on price performance. I know oracles aren't easy but we already have hundreds of incentivized MNOs to feed prices.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
In theory, even if DCG go ahead with Phase 2, we can still put together a competing proposal.

Can we have a more challenging proposal, that DCG must implement a dash price oracle? That would pave the way for rewards based on price performance. I know oracles aren't easy but we already have hundreds of incentivized MNOs to feed prices.
Click to expand...

What do you mean with a dash price oracle ?
 
qwizzie said:
What do you mean with a dash price oracle ?
Click to expand...

A mechanism to determine the actual price of dash in a decentralized manner. If we can all agree from the various sources that the median price of dash is $91.30 (or 0.0053 BTC, or 20.75 oz of gold etc), then on the next superblock payout I will get more dash reward if the price is higher.

Oracles aren't easy because there are obvious incentives to lie about the price, but given we have hundreds of independent MNOs globally, surely it's achievable. Either that or use an existing oracle like Chainlink et al.
 
I like the idea of oracles but imo they're not something that should be included in the foundation layer of governance. If InstantSend fails we fall back to regular transactions, oracles could be good as an advanced feature but governance should be able to fall back to a basic functionality. I'd love to see any amount of advanced features in governance but imo they're better suited to a layer above, maybe a Platform feature rather than a MN feature.

Hopefully the DCG proposal will be open to significant discussion (on more than just Discord) and possible changes before being put forward to a vote on implementation. These 2 proposals have been put forward in a "take it or leave it" kind of way, comments and suggestions seem to have fallen on deaf ears on both sides. That's understandable in this case, chopping and changing two competing live proposals wouldn't have been practical but if the DCG proposal is put forward as-is I don't think it will pass by a significant margin, a major change to the fundementals of governance shouldn't be made with anything other than overwhelming support.
 
stan.distortion said:
Hopefully the DCG proposal will be open to significant discussion...
Click to expand...

We have already discussed this for months on multiple fora. We have explored every facet of it ad nauseam. I don't understand how you could not have gotten the memo...

We have had a run-off election of the two proposals, and now the winning proposal (DCG) will be put before the DAO and voted on again to determine if it will be implemented.
 
stan.distortion said:
I like the idea of oracles but imo they're not something that should be included in the foundation layer of governance. If InstantSend fails we fall back to regular transactions, oracles could be good as an advanced feature but governance should be able to fall back to a basic functionality. I'd love to see any amount of advanced features in governance but imo they're better suited to a layer above, maybe a Platform feature rather than a MN feature.

Hopefully the DCG proposal will be open to significant discussion (on more than just Discord) and possible changes before being put forward to a vote on implementation. These 2 proposals have been put forward in a "take it or leave it" kind of way, comments and suggestions seem to have fallen on deaf ears on both sides. That's understandable in this case, chopping and changing two competing live proposals wouldn't have been practical but if the DCG proposal is put forward as-is I don't think it will pass by a significant margin, a major change to the fundementals of governance shouldn't be made with anything other than overwhelming support.
Click to expand...

I understand and I'd rather chase core values than price alone. I'm simply trying to address what both of these proposals are trying to achieve, and that is to incentivize better decision making. The voting process would remain exactly the same but we get to leverage what we already have, a global network of masternode owners, and every single one of them knows what the price of dash is right now.

Dash already has a pricing mechanism which is used in various projects, including the official mobile wallet. What I'm suggesting is an extension, further decentralization. A reliable price feed is important not just to ourselves but to all our users.
 
Geert said:
We have already discussed this for months on multiple fora. We have explored every facet of it ad nauseam. I don't understand how you could not have gotten the memo...

We have had a run-off election of the two proposals, and now the winning proposal (DCG) will be put before the DAO and voted on again to determine if it will be implemented.
Click to expand...

and where was this two phases approach discussed ?

On Dash.org/forum ? No
On DashPay Reddit ? No
on Dash Nation Discord ? No

It was only discussed on the dashtalk discord and then dumped on the network.
The unwillingness to discuss the specifics of both decision proposals before launching them as proposals on the Dash network, will remain a weak point for both decision proposals.
 
Last edited:
qwizzie said:
and where was this two phases approach discussed ?
Click to expand...

Originally there was not going to be two phases. Originally there was just going to be the DCG proposal to consider, but several MNOs got together and cobbled together an alternate plan. Are you going to criticize DCG for graciously accommodating this group?
 
Geert said:
Originally there was not going to be two phases. Originally there was just going to be the DCG proposal to consider, but several MNOs got together and cobbled together an alternate plan. Are you going to criticize DCG for graciously accommodating this group?
Click to expand...

I am criticizing DCG (Ryan Taylor) for not listening to several people who recommended doing a pre-discussion on the specifics of each decision proposal on all Dash forums, before launching the decision proposals on the network. Those people that recommended doing a pre-discussion on the specifics on all Dash forums, included certain people that worked on the MNO Plan. I am also criticizing those people from the MNO Plan, that found it unnecessary to do a pre-discussion.

If there was a pre-discussion about the specifics about each decision proposal, we would not have been surprised by this whole 2 phases approach and would also have had a far better picture of what the MNO Plan would entail. I did not know the MNO Plan also focused on extending the budget to 20%, i actually thought the MNO plan advocated a 10% budget and would just focus on the leftover budget (thereby forming an alternative to the DCG Plan).

A pre-discussion on the specifics of each decision proposal would have provided clarity early on and would have served as a means to informing the Dash community, what exactly was to be discussed and voted upon.
 
Last edited:
Geert said:
Pre-discussion? Where have you been? We have been discussing this since June...


And we have had almost a month's worth of discussions here since both proposals were created.
Click to expand...

Those were just very broad discussions, the specifics are missing there. It does not even mention the proposed blockreward re-allocation change of the DCG Plan,
and it says nothing about a two phases approach. All those specifics were only discussed on dashtalk discord and between certain MNO operators and Ryan Taylor.

Here you can read who from the MNO plan advocated a pre-discussion on the two proposal specifics as well : www.reddit.com/r/dashpay/comments/jgvph2/mno_incentives/

I even brought it up as a question in a quarterly call, for the Q& A section.
Link : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-core-group-q3-quarterly-call-29-10-2020.50832/#post-223896

The answer and my objection to that answer can be read here : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dcg-budget-system-change-discussion-missing-the-specifics.50867/

The specifics of the proposals were simply never pre-discussed on the Dash forums, prior to launch on the network.
 
Last edited:
Geert said:
Pre-discussion? Where have you been? We have been discussing this since June...
Click to expand...

I think a little mis-understanding. Qwizzie and others are saying that while the general subject was brought up, the specifics of the proposals have not been widely discussed. Places like reddit had some speculation but nothing solid was posted or discussed, rejected or accepted, directly from DCG. I agree with this sentiment, especially given the fundamental changes being put before us.

Dash needs a cheap flexible MNO-only voting system. Not 5 dash, not waiting a whole month to see the results. Would it not be better if DCG and MNOs could submit a multi-choice questionnaire and then repeat to fine-tune their concepts? At the very least, various concepts could of been posted to Dash Nexus where we can discuss them. Yet amidst all this, Ryan claimed there was talks with various stakeholders, including miners. Yep, I can see that part of the discussion took place.
 
stan.distortion said:
These 2 proposals have been put forward in a "take it or leave it" kind of way.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's unfortunate. I wish I could have been included in designing a better optimized proposal option and in negotiating and persuading miners to willingly accept it.

In my opinion the DCG plan is a step in the right direction, and now the priority is getting it implemented in 0.18 if the network votes for it. So I won't try to interfere with that choice.

Next year, after 0.18 is released, I have ideas to discuss with everybody for a proposal to ultimately optimize the block reward for the future. I will try to include everyone in the Dash community in that discussion.

stan.distortion said:
A major change to the fundamentals of governance shouldn't be made with anything other than overwhelming support.
Click to expand...

Very good point. Chain Locks has changed our fundamentals, so it makes sense for us to readjust the block reward. Now, for the sake of Dash's image as a reliable, sound store of value for investment, we should aim to implement the perfect optimal block reward and try to make it permanent going forward.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
 
onetime said:
Yes, that's unfortunate. I wish I could have been included in...
Click to expand...

I hope you understand that it's not practical for several hundred MNOs to design by committee a proposal of this nature. We need leadership, and DCG is providing that leadership.
 
Geert said:
I hope you understand that it's not practical for several hundred MNOs to design by committee a proposal of this nature. We need leadership, and DCG is providing that leadership.
Click to expand...
Your appeal to authority sickens me, try to embrace the democratic values of decentralisation for once in your life and use your nogging for some critical thinking, you surely need it.
 
Quick update : Phase 2 started three days ago and we got a new (unchanged) DCG decision proposal to vote upon --> https://www.dashcentral.org/p/decision-proposal-change-proposal-system

Unfortunetely Dash Central had some problems (again) that effected the voting and also did not show the latest budget proposal, but that seems to have been fixed today. We did lose three days of voting registration on the new DCG decision proposal and we lost three days of discussion time on the new budget proposal that was not showing on Dash Central. I believe rango is already in contact with someone from DCG to fix things long term for Dash Central, but maybe he could use more help ? I understand these are busy days for DCG, but these problems do negatively effect the governance process as a whole. Particularly in a time of decision proposals being active on our network.

Update : rango told us in the shoutbox of Dash Central that he implemented an autorestart, in case insight crashes again. So hopefully that will put and end to the insight crashes for Dash Central. As was mentioned in this thread before by kot, there is most likely a difference between rango's mentioned 'insight' and DCG maintained 'Insight' blockchain explorer.

There is also Dash Nexus that seems to be stuck --> it does not show any votes on the new decision proposal, mentions an invalid date at the voting deadline and does not show latest budget proposal, so maybe someone can contact Dash Nexus about this and have them sort this out ?

Ironically only dashninja.pl was showing the latest budget proposal and decision proposal correctly (i have a suspicious feeling nowadays few people still know about dashninja.pl but in times like these it does function as a good backup to look at proposals active on the network)
Link : https://www.dashninja.pl/governance.html

There is currently a large mismatch between yes votes on Dashninja.pl and yes votes on Dash Central. Dashninja.pl currently shows 47 yes votes and 71 no votes, while Dash Central currently shows 104 yes votes and 78 no votes.

Update : i verified the DCG decision proposal through a Dash Core wallet in the Console and that matches pretty closely with Dashninja & DMT. So Dash Central is most likely giving an incorrect larger number of yes votes. gobject get 6196f165b4700457f3ca2eeffe007a2863ce8ad12bbe4f24e807c1699fe7e13b in Console currently mentions 47 yes votes and 71 no votes (same as Dashninja & DMT).

Elbereth (owner of Dashninja.pl) also started a pre-discussion about a bug fixing and maintenance budget proposal he is planning to introduce on the network for Dashninja.pl later on : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...ing-maintenance-evolutions.50965/#post-224347

I think having Dash Central, Dash Nexus and Dashninja.pl operate without problems (bugs-free) is important to our governance model and deserves not only the masternode operators support, but also as much DCG support as possible.

We currently have only 10 days of voting left, so lets get the discussions & voting going on this new (unchanged) DCG decision proposal.
 
Last edited:
No comment from Rion or Hilawe yet regarding the DCG proposal. I suppose my intuition was correct that these two are more interested in opposing DCG than in anything else. The good thing about being a cynic is that you're so rarely disappointed in people.
 
Geert said:
No comment from Rion or Hilawe yet regarding the DCG proposal. I suppose my intuition was correct that these two are more interested in opposing DCG than in anything else. The good thing about being a cynic is that you're so rarely disappointed in people.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're expecting, everything that needs to be said is out there already.

Imo it is healthy for all proposals, including DCG, to have an opposition. In a court case you have a jury of ordinary men and women (in this case MNOs) and the onus is on the Proposal Owner to make their case. This is quite the challenge because there will often be expert witnesses that must explain complex matters in ordinary terms. Likewise, someone should challenge the assertions of the prosecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top