Flexible Proposal System

[strophy]

Perceived Problem

• 10% allocation to proposal system does not work for all situations
• During the bubble (2017-2018), funding often went unallocated
  • An attitude of “better to spend it than ‘waste’ the available funding” prevailed
  • Many extremely low value proposals obtained funding (such as MMA fighter sponsorships)
• When prices are low (late 2018-2019), there are more genuine network needs than funding
  • Layoffs within teams, or elimination of teams, may not be in the best interest of the network
  • Currently, it is feasible that masternodes would prefer to allocate more than 10% toward proposals, even at the cost of their rewards

Proposed Solution

• Enable the masternode owners to determine the allocation % each month
• Masternode owner interests should be tightly aligned with the interests of users (grow network utilization and value), and they would share equally in the costs of any efforts
• For example:
  • More allocation to proposal system:
    • 12% proposal system
    • 44% to stakers
    • 44% to MNOs
  • Less allocation to proposal system:
    • 6% to proposal system
    • 47% to stakers
    • 47% to MNOs

Key Questions for Discussion

• Should we allow the proposal system allocation % to be flexible?
• Should we allow for carry-over of unspent funds from one cycle to the next to prevent ‘waste’?

YouTube link: Proposal System Inflexibility
Lire en français

 

[qwizzie]

I don't like the idea of having to vote each month on how much more or less allocation is required, we have more then enough proposals to vote on as is.
We just need to make sure we have enough reserves build, so we can survive future bear markets and continue with our operations more easily.

Also we have an entity with a lot of masternodes active on our network, that i fear can then swing the allocation to its liking. I saw this entity at work when the
DIF 2nd Tranche budget proposal during the last superblock got massively down voted to make room for Dash Nexus budget proposal, all in less then a hour (right before voting ended).
Don't get me wrong, i like that Dash Nexus got its last month funded. But the way it got funded does expose a weakness in our voting system.

With regards to carry-over of unspent funds, i'm not particularly for that either. Evan Duffield introduced that once and it got down voted pretty fast.
I'm just not a fan of carry-over or catch-all proposals.

 

[AjM]

Should we allow the proposal system allocation % to be flexible?

Yes, but i prefer for automatic system.

Should we allow for carry-over of unspent funds from one cycle to the next to prevent ‘waste’?

Yes, make example an budget waste account where leftovers go and get used when normal budget is not adequate.

Also we have a problem that just small number of the MNs vote, so maybe some small reward for voting would help.

 

[Dandy]

Carry over no.
I would be for a flexible system, but I think it would be only fair if that would dip into the MNO rewards, not rewards of miners (and/of stakers, if we implement that).
As MNOs are effectively the ones with the power to vote on it and other network participants have no agency in that decision.

 

[p5yc071c]

Automatic adjustments...increasing to fund proposals that are approved but go over the limit.

Are there any examples in history where a governing body with the capability DID NOT gradually increase their own salaries to an unhealthy level? (ref treasury system change) I feel like there's a reverse tragedy of the commons principle where people in large groups will act differently than individuals...do you think that'd play out with the automatic adjustment model?

 

[blockchaintech]

Dash has a legal entity that requires financial support: the DIF.

The most logical would be to modify the rewards system so that it does not burn and the unallocated budget is allocated to the DIF & DIT.

 

[Ryan Taylor]

Yes, but i prefer for automatic system.


Yes, make example an budget waste account where leftovers go and get used when normal budget is not adequate.

Also we have a problem that just small number of the MNs vote, so maybe some small reward for voting would help.

I struggle to accept the “paid voting” idea, because it is likely to incentivize bad behavior. For example, minutes before the deadline a mno is incentivized to vote without evaluating the proposals. They are rewarded for voting “yes, no, yes, no, yes, no” which actually causes damage to the outcome.

 

[forro]

Governance... Government
Wasting money and asking for more is what they do best.
The hard limit is wise.
The answer is not to spend more money, the answer is to spend the money more wisely. It is a difficult thing to do. The easiest way to do it is to simply raise the bar.

MNOs have shown they lack the discipline to not only participate, but to properly evaluate the proposals and the proposal owners. Generous, poorly informed MNOs are consistently scammed and milked by charlatans, fooled by proposal owners who put in minimal effort for substantial amounts of money, and who only put in serious effort at self promotion when their proposals are up for a vote again. It works every time. They often do not hold proposal owners to account and seem to often vote blindly for familiar names.

They also continue to believe the dash will be 'wasted' if it's not spent. This is not true. The dash is simply not created. This reduces selling pressure. The MNOs should be thinking every dash given out will lower the price, unless the recipient is such a rock star they will be sure to raise the price.

In the end, MNOs are not much better than politicians. Fooled by lobbyists, hooking up their buddies, or simply out to lunch and cashing their paychecks.

Design and implement KYPO Know Your Proposal Owner:
If someone wants a grant from the treasury, then they should be prepared to open themselves up to scrutiny.
There was a time when pre-proposals were a thing. That needs to return. MNOs need to be adult enough to say no to any sales pitch, no matter how heartwarming or slick, if the person didn't make a pre-proposal on the forums first. A full CV, links to Linked In, etc. They must be a known entity, at least one cycle before they submit.
Require every proposal owner to do an interview on Dash News before submitting their proposal. They then link to the video when they submit their proposal. No video, no votes. Two hours seems like a long time, but often 10s, even hundreds of thousands of dollars are granted. A two hour video is not too much to ask. It is also enough time for a scammer to slip and have their story fall apart, or to find holes in the proposals of otherwise well-meaning POs.
Maybe the DIF has a fact-checking role here, and can also provide a report, posted to the comments of the proposal.

Vigilance is required on the communities part. We must call out POs who have not supplied enough info or transparency, and vote no. We should applaud members who hold the POs feet to the fire. They serve to prevent us looking like fools in the future, just as we should applaud journalists who have the courage to torpedo dirty politicians.

Increase Accountability:
There are proposals several of well-known community members receiving much more from the treasury than the dash network receives in benefits. They will get passed yet again, with dash to get very little benefit from it.
Requiring Dash News to take the time to do a two hour interview with every proposal owner will increase their usefulness to the MNO community and therefore to dash at large. Get to work, Dash Force!

Dash Watch doesn't seem to have any recent proposals or reports. Get that functioning again, and have them keep an eye on dashcentral and dashnexus daily. Whenever a known proposal owner submits a new proposal, Dash Watch would then post links to that PO's previous reports, good or bad. That will help MNOs easily see how this PO has been performing.

There was a lot of talk about escrow in the past. That should also make a comeback. How exactly, I don't know.

Pricing:
Many familiar community members are paying themselves quite nicely, knowing the MNOs will let them get away with it. This includes Dash Force, DACH, Dash Brazil. Half of what they are proposing seems more appropriate. There are others. As for DCG itself, is any MNO happy with Fernando? I hope he's one of the few not taking a salary.
If they raised their output it would seem more reasonable, but they certainly seem to be coasting.

Raise Proposal Fee:
The price for a proposal should also be raised to 10 dash. If we are a professional network, then we want professional propsals from professionals. 10 dash, regardless of USD value, is not difficult to acquire for an entity that actually has the potential to benefit the network. This will help to reduce the burden we have now put on Dash News, the DIF, and Dash Watch.


--

The dash network has everything it needs to do everything it needs. No protocol changes are necessary, other than raising the fee, and such uncertainties will only serve to reduce confidence.

 

[rick]

Perhaps additional Treasury allocation should be taken from MN rewards.

E.g. a min. treasury of 10% and a max of 20%. If MNs vote to allocate 20%, they receive only 35% reward.

Why?
- Incentivises closer review and investment in proposals. If the money comes out of MNOs' pockets, they'll be more cautious than if it's 'free money'.
- MNO voting becomes akin to an executive team weighing up reinvesting in the network (via extra treasury proposals), parking funds in cash (DIF), or taking a dividend (MNO payout). These tradeoffs may encourage better judgment.
- doesn't require any other changes to existing % split

 

[qwizzie]

Perhaps additional Treasury allocation should be taken from MN rewards.

E.g. a min. treasury of 10% and a max of 20%. If MNs vote to allocate 20%, they receive only 35% reward.

Why?
- Incentivises closer review and investment in proposals. If the money comes out of MNOs' pockets, they'll be more cautious than if it's 'free money'.
- MNO voting becomes akin to an executive team weighing up reinvesting in the network (via extra treasury proposals), parking funds in cash (DIF), or taking a dividend (MNO payout). These tradeoffs may encourage better judgment.
- doesn't require any other changes to existing % split

I strongly feel a possible solution should not be at the expense of masternode owners. If anything it should be directed at miners one way or another, as it is their mining hash power that keeps operating at or near ATH level and we also risk mining centralization in the future. Number of masternodes on the other hand is moving away from ATH (on the decline for some time now) and i fear taking additional Treasury allocation from MN rewards, could accelerate that even more.

 

[Miner237]

I strongly feel a possible solution should not be at the expense of masternode owners. If anything it should be directed at miners one way or another, as it is their mining hash power that keeps operating at or near ATH level and we also risk mining centralization in the future. Number of masternodes on the other hand is moving away from ATH (on the decline for some time now) and i fear taking additional Treasury allocation from MN rewards, could accelerate that even more.

Agreed

 

[Miner237]

Governance... Government
Wasting money and asking for more is what they do best.


Design and implement KYPO Know Your Proposal Owner:
If someone wants a grant from the treasury, then they should be prepared to open themselves up to scrutiny.

There was a time when pre-proposals were a thing. That needs to return. MNOs need to be adult enough to say no to any sales pitch, no matter how heartwarming or slick, if the person didn't make a pre-proposal on the forums first. A full CV, links to Linked In, etc. They must be a known entity, at least one cycle before they submit.

Raise Proposal Fee:
The price for a proposal should also be raised to 10 dash. If we are a professional network, then we want professional propsals from professionals. 10 dash, regardless of USD value, is not difficult to acquire for an entity that actually has the potential to benefit the network. This will help to reduce the burden we have now put on Dash News, the DIF, and Dash Watch.


--

The dash network has everything it needs to do everything it needs. No protocol changes are necessary, other than raising the fee, and such uncertainties will only serve to reduce confidence.

... If we have kypo and po will sign contract for escrow funds. I am willing to facilitate USD to US bank accounts with government issued ID. If no contract you end up getting stuck for taxes which is what happened to Green Candle

And applauding community for holding PO feet to fire is win win in my opinion.

 

[rick]

I strongly feel a possible solution should not be at the expense of masternode owners. If anything it should be directed at miners one way or another, as it is their mining hash power that keeps operating at or near ATH level and we also risk mining centralization in the future. Number of masternodes on the other hand is moving away from ATH (on the decline for some time now) and i fear taking additional Treasury allocation from MN rewards, could accelerate that even more.

I get that, but my suggestion attempted three things:

- is there a way to break off the flexible budget change, so it isn't reliant on the larger POW/POS discussion and agreement? That could take a while.
- This explicitly doesn't change MN rewards, unless MNs vote to do so. You could have the sliding reward 45% down to 35%, or 55% down to 45%... And the vote only affects MN payouts and treasury payouts. Should stakers and miners be facing variable returns each month based on MN votes? No, I'd argue that will soften demand.
- Whatever the decision on mining %, they run a business on a longer timeframe -- equipment expenditure paid off over time. They need a predictable return. Having it change each month based on MN vote would be a huge disincentive.

 

[DeepBlue]

Suggested Improvements to DASH Proposal and Governance System That Increase Value Of DASH

We need to make some changes to the current governance / proposal system to ensure the projects we are working on align with realising the business development of DASH in a more systematic way.

At the moment Dash is like a ship in the middle of the ocean with no compass and no chart. We are spending energy moving in one direction, then changing direction and going in another direction and then back paddling. This is all waste. We need to have a ship, with a map a compass and clear charted out path to get us to our destination. We are not going to achieve that with our current setup of dozens of unrelated projects. We need projects that systematically take us in the direction we need to go.

I feel we cannot compete against bitcoin at this moment in time. So, we should do like Apple did when it had only 8% of the market. Identify and dominate the niches and become very strong in those. In order to do this we need to have a cohesive worked out strategy and specific projects that month on month build on achieving that goal to get our ship called DASH to its destination, safely, quickly and efficiently with all our energy and talent moving in one direction to that destination.

How to select projects that align With DASH long-term business growth of the DASH network
We need projects to be strategically aligned with the business development of DASH's i.e. proposals need to be voted that will work towards realising DASH's clearly defined target market areas.

Firstly we need to develop a clearly laid out plan and strategy for DASH growth and have projects that align specifically with achieving those target markets. In order to achieve this we need a much more detailed and clearly worked out "Business Plan" for DASH. At the moment it is simply too vague.

It is not enough to simply list out the industry types that DASH should go after e.g. high charge-back industries, countries with hype inflation, traders etc. We need to more clearly define actual characteristics that a project needs to meet within those broad market categories in order for it to be worthwhile in realising that business growth vision. Then we need to do market research on the shortlists within those areas then decide specifically which specific market solution we will develop to address that specific niche within a market category.

To achieve this I suggest we consider a modified version of the the Agile development process to help us organise the treasury system projects into a more cohesive system that not only helps DASH meet its business dev goals, brings sustainable revenue to DASH but also assists MNOs in making decisions.

e.g. In Agile there is a concept of building a "backlog" of features which is essentially just an ordered list. The backlog of features are then assessed and ranked in order of importance. In this way the most valuable features that bring the most benefit are worked on and released first. I feel we need to pro-actively create a "Projects Backlog" list. i.e. a list of projects that would help DASH realise our business development goals that fit within the identified categories DASH is focused on.

Each project would be ranked by MNOs voting in order of greatest value return to the network. We can add any number of suggested projects and investment proposal e.g. DIF investment ideas to this backlog. The larger the backlog the better. After several months the top projects in the backlog list, that meet with the DASH development vision, could be added to the DASH proposal to compete against regular proposals for funding. If successful, we would hire our own dev team team with project manager to fulfil the feature. The important point here however is the monthly cost of the project needs to be valued in USD and not DASH. We cannot hire developers unless they are paid a regular wage. In addition once a project is voted for we need to continue to pay for development until the Project is fully realised. Too many projects are ending midway because there is a change of heart in voting and we lose all the investment we made in that project up until then.

The advantages of this new project selection through a ranked project backlog are as follows:

1. We have more focus in the types of projects that meet with the vision of DASH business development.
2. We retain IP rights which we can distribute/license to other DASH projects benefiting the DASH eco-system beyond any one single project. This amplifies many times the value of one project to the DASH network.
3. We have accountability from the team leaders on the projects because we hire them i.e we choose the team to work on the project. We can get detailed reports on progress of work and steer the project to ensure it meets the goals and objects we have set.
4. We eliminate the problem of proposal trolls that are hijacking projects because the projects have been voted by the MNOs to be the most valuable even before they reach the treasury system.
5. MNOs can choose to fund the project using a % of their rewards automatically taken if sufficient funds in treasury do not exist this ensure valuable projects are completed.

Once MNOs can see that we have a systematic set of projects that are helping us achieve DASH's long term vision as the world's premier payments system we can then consider if investing in these projects would bring us greater return on investment by the DASH coin increase in value compared to the 6.5% per annum return from MNO rewards, and then vote to allocate funds to that particular project to get it through.
One example of a project that would greatly increase the value of DASH
DASH needs to have a stable store of value for merchants I put forward a suggestion last year of a new type of Dash specific True Stable coin that is linked directly to a basket of 52,000 items used to calculate the cost of living. In this way the DASH stable coin would be more stable than fiat currency that constantly depreciates. This would create demand for this type of coin over depreciating USD. We would use DASH as the staking coin. You can read my article here on this new type of DASH stable coin. The DASH super stable coin would be useful in Airline industries where one of their main concerns is currency depreciation and it would also be useful for Pension Programs to retain value.

DASH True stable coin
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/what-dash-needs-to-set-it-above-all-other-cryptos.43036/

Providing stability for DASH transactions for merchants is of critical importance for DASH to be taken up by merchants in commerce. If we do not solve this issue we simply will not see DASH being taken up by merchants on any scale outside of high inflation countries. By providing stability in digital equivalent of USD or Euro the value of DASH price would increase because now merchants could use DASH for their businesses.

I also feel another major project type we are not yet including and funding that we really must include to be successful is for in-depth market research and assessments projects. We would use these on which to clearly identify the specific niches within the market categories we need to focus on. These types of research project should come first, before any development work starts.

I gave the above projects as a few examples of projects that could be added to the Dash Projects Backlog. Once in the backlog MNOs could vote for the project up or down and provide comments for the reason for their votes.

Note that the Projects Backlog then becomes an asset to the Dash Network. DIF investment suggestions, Ideas, suggestions, feature requests, bugs, research projects can all be added to this backlog and ranked. In this way the top projects will rise to the top of the Backlog. I feel the first projects really should be Market Research projects to clearly identify and compare the different business opportunities that are open to dash within the Categories previously identified by the DCG.

Once we have the top projects identified we can hire a dev team with a project manager to work on the project. These business development projects will be independent of DCG who are working on the main protocol for the network. The dev projects MNOs would be responsible for are business development projects.

Each project that enters the projects backlog list would have points automatically awarded if it meets the characteristics of a worthwhile DASH project. We could define and refine these characteristics of a worthwhile dash project some examples include:

1. Does the project generate revenue for the DASH network?
2. What % Dash individuals or businesses would benefit if this project was successful?
3. Does this project assist DASH's establish itself into the core key market types identified by DCG to be the focus of our business dev strategy i.e. hyperinflation countries, high charge-back industries
4. Could the project be made self sustaining?
5. Can the IP of the project be used in other DASH projects?
6. Is the DASH brand name put forward first in promoting the new service?

The Projects Backlog then becomes a decentralized way for us to identify, vote on and choose specific projects that meet with the strategic market areas already identified by DCG and gives clarity and focus to our govenenance system. Once we have the jobs defined we can post these Projects on sites like upwork.com to fulfill them.

DASH Brand
We are losing huge opportunities to get the DASH brand name out with our projects. Many projects are using their own branding. Quality projects provide us with a DASH brand awareness opportunity. Marketing of the DASH brand is hand in hand with providing the quality service we develop. In order for this to be successful however we must enforce quality standards -otherwise the Dash brand could be adversely affected. Which means we need to actually run the projects ourselves to ensure the quality is there.

We need to create a list of ideal characteristics a project would have that would give projects in the projects backlog an automatic value rating to the network. This would assist MNOs more easily assess the value of a project to meet with the overall long-term business development of DASH.

There is far too much waste in DASH right now. If we could eliminate waste we will increase returns to the network and the value of DASH would be retained.

These are the waste areas I can see right now:
1. MNOs wasting energy and time battling each other and trolls with no long-term focus of the business development of DASH.
2. Projects that are not financially self sustainable and therefore end when there are no more funds awarded.
3. Projects with poor management as a result money is lost. (if we choose the management instead of have them choose us there is accountability)
4. Projects run by external entities were we have absolutely no control over the project or the IP generated or how it can benefit DASH e.g. Alt36, KuvaCash. Millions of dollars spent with next to nothing to show for it - not even the IP, our brand name or transactions counts.
5. Overpaying for developers / teams is eliminated since we hire the dev teams.
6. Projects partially funded then we stop funding in the middle of the project because another "better" idea comes along.
7. Ideas, suggestions, feedback from community members are being lost in the forums and Discord. These could be captured and added to a Projects Backlog and voted on in terms of importance in realising our clearly defined goals - in this ways we capture good ideas into a systematic project backlog system that organizes these and ranks them converting them to a business asset.

The project backlog system will solve all the above waste points because MNOs are the ones that voted for the project to go to the top of the project backlog list and therefore we have MNO buy in for that project. This is very similar to the Agile process in which team members select which features they want to develop for the new release.

Why reinvent the wheel? Simply adapt the Agile backlog methodology to manage our Governance system. See this page on how to use a backlog effectively:

https://www.perforce.com/video-tutorials/hns/how-create-product-backlog-hansoft-10

Education first over marketing
There has been talk of spending money on marketing the DASH brand. I feel that is not the time to market DASH yet in the traditional sense. What we first need is to educated users, businesses, developers etc with an education portal. We then can refer to specific education pages - which may include videos in marketing later on. Education must come first. e.g. where is the education on showing the benefits of DASH to a business? How can a business setup DASH payments on line? What are the legal ramifications for doing this in each country? There are so many questions that must be answered first before marketing can take place.

MNOs with real world business experience could volunteer to assess projects that fall within their category of experience and other MNOs can delegate their voting keys to these MNOs

We need a system for MNOs that have business experience and an area of expertise to be more involved with voting on projects. This means a system for MNO Voting key delegation and management. This way MNOs that do not have much time can delegate their voting keys to MNOs that have business experience in a particular area. At any time a MNO can withdraw their voting key rights if they are not happy with how a MNO is voting on projects in this way the power of decentralised decisions remains but better quality decisions are made.

The above proposed changes ensure that business development remains decentralised and no one single entity would control the business growth of DASH but would still provide focus and alignment with DASH moving in the same direction to achieve our business growth objectives.

We would retain IP that can be re-used, we would increase value to DASH network and we would be working in a systematic logical manner to increase value to the network. Then MNOs can choose to fund the project with the funding coming from our Dash rewards or from the treasury.

Therefore if we are to have MNO selectable funding I feel we need it on a per project basis and that project would need to provide greater value to the DASH price increase than the MNO rewards. We can only achieve this if MNOs are responsible for making the decisions as to what project types we need to increase DASH value and that means a new Project Backlog suggestion and ranking system needs to be developed for the Governance system.

 

[p5yc071c]

Can you describe how exactly, "Each project would be ranked by MNOs voting in order of greatest value return to the network."? Seems like a collection of delegates might be able to help here?

 

[Geert]

Two things:

1. I would like to see the treasury simply increased to fifteen percent of the block reward. Otherwise, you burden the MNOs with more things to argue over each cycle.

2. We may want to eventually have TWO CLASSES OF MASTERNODES. One that has voting power and one that does not. The reason for this is that we do not want some entity that is staking Dash on behalf of their customers to vote the masternodes under their control. This creates a moral hazard, as the staking company does not have any real "skin in the game." One way to create the two classes would be to give more rewards to masternodes that can't vote.

 

[forro]

Perhaps additional Treasury allocation should be taken from MN rewards.

E.g. a min. treasury of 10% and a max of 20%. If MNs vote to allocate 20%, they receive only 35% reward.

Why?
- Incentivises closer review and investment in proposals. If the money comes out of MNOs' pockets, they'll be more cautious than if it's 'free money'.
- MNO voting becomes akin to an executive team weighing up reinvesting in the network (via extra treasury proposals), parking funds in cash (DIF), or taking a dividend (MNO payout). These tradeoffs may encourage better judgment.
- doesn't require any other changes to existing % split

I agree strongly with the idea that the treasury funds should come out of the MNO reward, for the reasons you state. Fantastic idea. However, I think it should remain at 10%, and the fee increased to 10 dash. Unspent dash will remain with the MNOs.

Quality of proposals and ROI would increase significantly. Gullible, generous MNOs who offer their support on nearly every proposal will view them with a much more critical eye. It would likely encourage more MNO participation as the money is coming directly out of their pocket.

Previously passive MNOs would come to the table to make sure their money is being spent wisely. The proposal system would come alive and the new conversations and ideas brought forth to refine the system and develop ways to increase accountability from POs would result.

However, this will be as easy to pass as a bill on term limits for lazy, corrupt politicians. Only those MNOs who truly have the best interests of humanity and dash at heart would vote yes to such a proposal.

 

[forro]

I strongly feel a possible solution should not be at the expense of masternode owners. If anything it should be directed at miners one way or another, as it is their mining hash power that keeps operating at or near ATH level and we also risk mining centralization in the future. Number of masternodes on the other hand is moving away from ATH (on the decline for some time now) and i fear taking additional Treasury allocation from MN rewards, could accelerate that even more.

If this causes an MNO to sell their MN, then good. They are a low quality MNO and dash is better off without them. Also remember, less MNs means you get paid more often. MNOs should hope for a low number of MNs to increase the reward frequency.

 

[forro]

What if the unallocated dash at the end of the cycle was given to the masternodes rather than not being created?
It would still help tighten up wasteful spending by tapping into MNO greed, but less drastic than the entire budget coming from them. Still likely to encourage more MNO participation, too.

 

[Geert]

Two things:

1. I would like to see the treasury simply increased to fifteen percent of the block reward. Otherwise, you burden the MNOs with more things to argue over each cycle.

2. We may want to eventually have TWO CLASSES OF MASTERNODES. One that has voting power and one that does not. The reason for this is that we do not want some entity that is staking Dash on behalf of their customers to vote the masternodes under their control. This creates a moral hazard, as the staking company does not have any real "skin in the game." One way to create the two classes would be to give more rewards to masternodes that can't vote.

Another, simpler way to implement this would be to modify the amount of Dash required for each type. For example, a voting masternode might need to stake 1,050 Dash and a non-voting masternode might need to stake only 950 Dash. Masternodes staked with 1,000 Dash would become invalid. Doing it this way would force existing masternodes to actively choose which they preferred.