[Discuss] Pre-Proposal: Vote Nodes

GrandMasterDash

GrandMasterDash

Well-known member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Introduction

The hope of collateralized masternodes was to engage MNOs and incentivize good decisions. However, while this may be true for some of you, I'm a little worried that a significant portion of MNOs are simply here for the free ride. That is to say, while the price holds, they're happy to stick around, do next to nothing, yet claim their reward. When the price crashes, they'll be out of here.. and who will be left to pick up the pieces? - then the price goes up and the freeloaders get back onboard... ugghh.

Solution

Retain current masternode / reward system, but create a new class of node; Vote Nodes:
  • 100 dash requirement
  • zero reward
  • one governance vote per node
  • free proposal submissions (receive funding)
  • free proposal submissions (exclusive to DAO / Governance)
Regular masternodes can only vote for funding proposals, they can not vote on DAO / Governance (which is 99% of what happens anyway).

Equally, Vote Nodes can only vote on governance, not funding.
 
Last edited:
GrandMasterDash said:
I'm a little worried that a significant portion of MNOs are simply here for the free ride.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a free ride. They are providing the service of a node which costs bandwidth/storage/uptime. My understanding is that with Evolution, the Distributed API (DAPI), the Dash Drive (a distributed database), those costs may increase significantly, which requires compensation. The MNOs are the primary service providers that makes Dash possible. The collateral ensures that every MNO is committed to the value of Dash, not just its near term ROI or the speculative price of Dash.
 
jimbursch said:
I don't think it's a free ride. They are providing the service of a node which costs bandwidth/storage/uptime. My understanding is that with Evolution, the Distributed API (DAPI), the Dash Drive (a distributed database), those costs may increase significantly, which requires compensation. The MNOs are the primary service providers that makes Dash possible. The collateral ensures that every MNO is committed to the value of Dash, not just its near term ROI or the speculative price of Dash.
Click to expand...

If MNOs were interested in governance, we'd of seen a lot more proposals about it, but there's been very few.

Let the MNOs keep their reward and maintain the network performance. But then also, allow some people with zero interest in instant gratification participate in the long term sustainability of dash. This proposal fills a gap and offers a cheaper way for people to be genuinely involved in the long term good of dash. It's a different class of node. It doesn't have to meet tight performance metrics. The majority of MNOs would find little need to own Vote Nodes, they only care for the reward. Vote Node Owners would be motivated by volunteering and long term interest.
 
Just to clarify, the Masternodes could not vote on governance questions/rules/proposals??? Only the new category could vote on governance proposals?

thanks in advance,

solarguy
 
solarguy said:
Just to clarify, the Masternodes could not vote on governance questions/rules/proposals??? Only the new category could vote on governance proposals?

thanks in advance,

solarguy
Click to expand...

Yes. The basic idea is that the current class of masternodes would only deal with funding votes, which is basically 99% of what happens right now.

A Vote Node without financial reward would attract people that are motivated by other non-financial reasons.
 
solarguy said:
I would not be in favor of taking away the Masternodes ability to vote on governance questions.
Click to expand...

If governance was such an important topic for MNOs, then why in dash's history have there only ever been a handful of governance proposals? And for those governance proposals that have been voted, how many have submitted a counter proposal? (none)

Indeed, in the comments of the current ADP proposal, there are MNOs complaining for having to vote for something every month. A Vote Node would relieve them of such mundane tasks.
 
In any large group, some will complain about something.

Just because governance is important, and I believe that it is, does not mean there must be a flurry of governance proposals.

Another theory is that the present governance system has worked reasonably well and has not required much in the way of modifying.

Another theory is that change is often episodic. We would expect little change, and then brisk change. The masternode community will rise to the challenge.

Why would those with less skin in the game make better or more thoughtful decisions than those with more?

What would prevent people who do not have the best interest of Dash at heart from taking advantage of such an inexpensive governance voting system?

I will happily carry the burden of governance.
 
solarguy said:
In any large group, some will complain about something.

Just because governance is important, and I believe that it is, does not mean there must be a flurry of governance proposals.

Another theory is that the present governance system has worked reasonably well and has not required much in the way of modifying.

Another theory is that change is often episodic. We would expect little change, and then brisk change. The masternode community will rise to the challenge.

Why would those with less skin in the game make better or more thoughtful decisions than those with more?

What would prevent people who do not have the best interest of Dash at heart from taking advantage of such an inexpensive governance voting system?

I will happily carry the burden of governance.
Click to expand...

(No MNO badge but I'll assume you are....)

Perhaps you @solarguy should pit your argument against @Vedran Yoweri who vehemently believes MNOs should not be deciding issues of governance (that they are not technically informed enough). I'm sure he would disagree with both you and me! These differences in opinion about governance extend way beyond masternodes and that's why I think a one-size-fits-all masternode vote may not be the optimal solution.

I'm not simply hoping for a "flurry of governance proposals". I hope it would give us some real world feedback and allow us to hear a different voice. Also, right now, there are a lot of cryptos experimenting with various models of governance. Dash has proved itself for funding but it's most definitely weak in governance. Consistently voting for no change is not governance! No wish to adapt or experiment, no desire to gather hard data... this hyper-conservative "governance" already exists, it's called bitcoin.

DAOs are like bridges; you can't just build them, you must also maintain them. It's most definitely an ongoing process.

From what I've seen, having "skin in the game" has worked with funding but we have zero examples of where it's worked in governance. We can't even include Evan's 2MB block size because it was never implemented. Indeed, by the time it becomes an issue, we might well need a re-vote or to vote for SegWit etc. But what I can say, a masternode reward creates an incentive for capital growth i.e. more USD per 1.8 dash reward. Capital growth and long term sustainability may not align. Capital growth alone might lead to boom and bust.

But anyway, having said all that, I'm most definitely not an expert in such things! But I am convinced dash (indeed all cryptos), need to take this subject a lot more seriously, and I believe dash must take action and prove we're leaders, instead of stagnating.
 
I would happily reduce the fee to one Dash for all proposals, or have a two tiered fee structure so that polls or governance questions cost 50 bucks rather than ~500. This would encourage and allow more polls and governance proposals.

Could you comment on strategies you would use to prevent bad actors from using your new and inexpensive governance system from harming Dash and the community?
 
solarguy said:
I would happily reduce the fee to one Dash for all proposals, or have a two tiered fee structure so that polls or governance questions cost 50 bucks rather than ~500. This would encourage and allow more polls and governance proposals.

Could you comment on strategies you would use to prevent bad actors from using your new and inexpensive governance system from harming Dash and the community?
Click to expand...

First of all, Vote Nodes would share some of the qualities / requirements of a masternode. For example, new masternodes must wait a certain number of blocks before they become fully active. Fast response times or high collateral is not required because Vote Nodes would not be providing services like Instant Send or Private Send.

Secondly, although proposal submissions would be free, it should be relatively easy to throttle the limit to, say, one proposal per day.

And thirdly, given the IP for all MNs / VNs is publicly available, it should be relatively easy for the majority of Vote Nodes to block bad nodes e.g. 90% of VNs agreeing to ban a specific IP.

In summary,, I consider the risks of abuse to be low because:
  1. a small (but meaningful) collateral is required, and
  2. given the long lead time to become a Vote Node, and
  3. given the ability to throttle proposal submissions, and
  4. in any case, VNs could vote to ban nodes
I don't think a high collateral, by itself, is a guarantee against abuse because the possibility of deep pockets always exists, whether it's 100 or 1000 dash. While it is true a 100 dash collateral makes abuse 10x easier, I would argue it also makes it 10x easier for good nodes to participate, thus easier to outmanoeuvre bad nodes.
 
For less than $450, you could find out with certainty.

I would predict it would not pass, but I would like to see the experiment.
 
There is no easy answer to this debate since it is so hard to measure effectiveness of any change - especially without it happening first.

It would seem unfair to allow only Vote Nodes to vote on a "governance issue" that as a bad example says master nodes need 6 months notice before they can move their funds without having the MN owners vote also.

As it stands now the majority of master nodes don't vote - just like in most US political elections. That is neither good nor bad just the system. If you want to change the vote threshold to 100 Dash you allow more potential voters (still an approx $8,000 investment) which doesn't guarantee better outcomes.
 
This feels like way more trouble than it is worth. I don't think that doing this would even significantly change the outcome of governance votes compared to how it is now, if anything it would make the votes less representative of stakeholders by being backed by a smaller total of dash.

I do not mind the idea of distinguishing between a governance proposal and a funding proposal, and treating them slightly differently in terms of what happens with the fee, but other than that this seems like a massive project for a questionable amount of benefit.
 
TroyDASH said:
This feels like way more trouble than it is worth. I don't think that doing this would even significantly change the outcome of governance votes compared to how it is now, if anything it would make the votes less representative of stakeholders by being backed by a smaller total of dash.

I do not mind the idea of distinguishing between a governance proposal and a funding proposal, and treating them slightly differently in terms of what happens with the fee, but other than that this seems like a massive project for a questionable amount of benefit.
Click to expand...

Maybe, don't know. But I am sure, when it comes to governance, dash really needs to get it's act together. All that time ago when Evan had his block size "victory" over bitcoin... but what happened since? - zero. I can't think of one example where governance has delivered anything for dash. Right now dash's governance seem exactly the same as bitcoin.. a bunch of people fiercely defending their right not to change. This is exactly why pivx exists, and they will soon introduce three new vote types. Maybe they will fail, or succeed, who knows? And then there's crown, decred, ethereum, nem and tezos.. all of them have voting and governance on their roadmap. It seems very few people appreciate just how important this is for next gen crypto.
 
What are some governance proposals that would help dash? What is blocking them? Just changing the way voting works doesn't seem to add much value.

It seems to me that core development, "funding" requests, business development and outreach are the growth areas.
 
joemoraca said:
What are some governance proposals that would help dash? What is blocking them? Just changing the way voting works doesn't seem to add much value.

It seems to me that core development, "funding" requests, business development and outreach are the growth areas.
Click to expand...

Gosh many.. there are potential protocol changes (SegWit, SNARKS etc)... then there was the time we upgraded to 12.1 and Evan switched off payment enforcement to masternodes.... or the time core took it upon themselves to get into bed with Coinfirm. Generally speaking, there has been very little engagement between core and the dash community.
 
If dash gets millions of users, how will it remain in touch with it's end-users? - the block size debacle highlights what happens when a relative minority have a single vision of what shall be and not be.
 
Thanks. I am pretty new so don't have that history. I don't know the history with Coinfirm but that seems like it should have been discussed.
 
"but what happened since? - zero. I can't think of one example where governance has delivered anything for dash..."

Ummm, more than doubling the number of developers (somebody mentioned we have more than any other coin now.) Closing in on Evolution--easy as PayPal. Best outreach in the business (Thank you Amanda B. Johnson). Most robust infrastructure out there, and improving. Multiple integrations with other platforms every month. Two new credit cards backed by Dash in the works. Impressive increase in value, instant send, new and effective outreach on social media (thanks DashForce), active groups in Mexico, Russia, Poland, eastern europe, africa, japan soon I think, etc etc etc. An interesting slate of proposals every month...

That's an odd sort of zero in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top