is super majority for the proposals unfair towards yes voters ??

Dashmaximalist

Dashmaximalist

Well-known member
right now for any proposal to pass . , it needs to have clear a super majority ie yes votes - no votes > 1/10( all MNOs roughtly at 460 .. so not only a proposal needs to get at least 460 yes votes , it should get one more yes vote for every no vote.

essentially even if everyone votes , No Votes are still worth 1.10% more valuable than yes votes , as you know most MNOs don't vote , so NO voters can easily stop many proposals even when they are the minority.

I think we should change the proposal passing criterion to the following.

For a proposal to pass,
it should have at least 460 votes ( yes + no votes ) ( to avoid last minute proposals getting passed with just 10 yes votes )
but once it passes that mark , it should just be just yes votes > no votes.

This way we dont give unfair advantage to the No votes.

what do you think ??
 
Last edited:
This sounds like a good idea.

But i think if we are going to adjust the way the budget system works we would want to do some more reaseach into our options.
 
The current system is functionally, a crowd sourced predictive futures market. The idea of a predictive group based mechanism is that 1. the people who vote have a meaningful opinion, and 2. to have meaningful results with regard to accurately predicting the future, it has to be some level of super majority. Let's pick a meaningful example, is it going to rain tomorrow? If you survey a 1,000 people about the likelihood of it raining tomorrow, and 100 self select and actually vote, these are people who think they know something about weather. It's a good phenomenon. If you force people to vote about the weather, you will get people who have no idea about how weather works, and you dilute if not completely ruin the forecasting ability of the group who do know something about weather.

If the self selected weather wise people vote 80/20 that it's going to rain, there's a pretty dang good chance it will rain. If they vote 20/80 for rain tomorrow, very high likelihood it will not rain.

What if the self selected 100 vote 50/50? Well, now it's a crap shoot, and we just don't know what will happen.

The super majority of self selected voters is what gives the treasury system a better than random chance at predicting good outcomes on proposals.

How much super-majority? That depends on the potential downside of bad proposals that pass, and the potential opportunity cost of proposals that would have helped, but did not get a super majority. It would take some pretty fancy research to evaluate that.
 
solarguy said:
The current system is functionally, a crowd sourced predictive futures market. The idea of a predictive group based mechanism is that 1. the people who vote have a meaningful opinion, and 2. to have meaningful results with regard to accurately predicting the future, it has to be some level of super majority. Let's pick a meaningful example, is it going to rain tomorrow? If you survey a 1,000 people about the likelihood of it raining tomorrow, and 100 self select and actually vote, these are people who think they know something about weather. It's a good phenomenon. If you force people to vote about the weather, you will get people who have no idea about how weather works, and you dilute if not completely ruin the forecasting ability of the group who do know something about weather.

If the self selected weather wise people vote 80/20 that it's going to rain, there's a pretty dang good chance it will rain. If they vote 20/80 for rain tomorrow, very high likelihood it will not rain.

What if the self selected 100 vote 50/50? Well, now it's a crap shoot, and we just don't know what will happen.

The super majority of self selected voters is what gives the treasury system a better than random chance at predicting good outcomes on proposals.

How much super-majority? That depends on the potential downside of bad proposals that pass, and the potential opportunity cost of proposals that would have helped, but did not get a super majority. It would take some pretty fancy research to evaluate that.
Click to expand...


you made a reasonably simple idea , very complex to most of us. since you are talking about predictive futures market , there is one coin which is built on this concept which allows decentralised gambling , Augur... These guys whose entire business is about crowdsourcing prediction events don't go by supermajority , they go by simple majority.

we can't treat treasury like a holy thing, its a simple funding mechanism and lets not reinvent the wheel. 1000s of companies do it right now through shareholder voting which doesn't involve this supermajority concept. we need a real logical reason why the current system is the way it is , if not its best to change it.
 
Dashmaximalist said:
you made a reasonably simple idea , very complex to most of us. since you are talking about predictive futures market , there is one coin which is built on this concept which allows decentralised gambling , Augur... These guys whose entire business is about crowdsourcing prediction events don't go by supermajority , they go by simple majority.

we can't treat treasury like a holy thing, its a simple funding mechanism and lets not reinvent the wheel. 1000s of companies do it right now through shareholder voting which doesn't involve this supermajority concept. we need a real logical reason why the current system is the way it is , if not its best to change it.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the concept that you would trust a super majority more than a simple majority in a “wisdom of the crowd” type decision-making system is “very complex” — as you say.

Also, this system has operated with a fair number of proposals being funded each month where the monthly budget has been mostly filled for nearly two years at this point. (This month, so far, has been a rare exception due to the huge price run up.)

Given that, I would expect that any proposal to modify the system would have to offer “a real logical reason” for the change — and not the other way around. So I ask you, specifically, what big issue(s) has the current setup caused that in your opinion merits the changes you are suggesting?
 
The point is simple dash dao is a decentralized company I am an investor

My yes or no vote should have an equal say not more not less.

We can stop proposal creation three days prior to closing the voting so that we can elminate last minute proposal fraud.

Fairness is the cornerstone of good capitalism and dash dao according to me is one such thing.
 
It was already complex. Voting on proposals is an attempt to predict the future. Will this proposal help the Dash ecosystem, or will it not? Now you have more information to think about the implications. I'm not suggesting we change it or don't change it. Just that it's not a slam dunk either way. Augur's goal is to assign a probability to a future event. In that case, 50/50 is fine. That might be the actual probability. But if we are attempting to select for successful proposals, it would be nice to have more than a 50/50 chance in my estimation.
 
Dashmaximalist said:
Thanks , let's wait for someone from core to comment on this @tungfa thoughts
Click to expand...

i do not see this issue
you want better chances for yes votes ?
why ?
the system is working well - i know u are desperate for more proposals but making it easier for proposals to pass will not bring more or better proposals
only will get “bad” proposals better chances to get voted in
 
Requiring the supermajority helps ensure a more decisive/unified level of support for the proposals that do pass. But to be honest, I'm not sure if this is necessary. A change like this I am sure would break along the typical political lines in dash between the MNOs that believe we need to be more careful about how we spend funds in general, versus the MNOs who think it is better to take a risk on just about any proposal than no proposal.

If the budget system was created from the beginning with just a majority+10% minimum requirement, I probably wouldn't have complained. But I'm also not complaining about the current setup. In the long run I'm not sure if it would really matter a whole lot, but I prefer it the way it is now.
 
If we had more mn’s voting I could see a simple majority but right now at best only 20-30% of mns cast votes.
 
Dashmaximalist said:
ben swann has got 698 Yes / 301 No votes ( https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Ben-Swann-Reality-Check-Relaunch ) so effectively every NO vote is as twice as powerful as every yes Votes , this is insane
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense to characterize it that way. If there were 4600 MNs and there were 460 Yes votes and 1 No vote, would you say that the no vote is 460 times as powerful as the yes votes?

Every yes vote makes a proposal one vote closer to passing, and every no vote makes a proposal one vote farther away from passing.

The argument is not about whether some votes are more "powerful" than others, it's about whether we want proposals to only pass via a relatively strong consensus, or whether they should be allowed to pass on a weak consensus.
 
I think if some of the good proposals don't pass this month it will cause some serious attention to this issue.
Each MN can now comfortably support a family. If those MNO aren't investing time in voting and contributing to the network, this project will fail.
It is greed and ignorance of the legacy financial system that spawned this technology - will it be greed and ignorance that also seals our fate?
Get out and vote!!!
 
TroyDASH said:
It doesn't make sense to characterize it that way. If there were 4600 MNs and there were 460 Yes votes and 1 No vote, would you say that the no vote is 460 times as powerful as the yes votes?

Every yes vote makes a proposal one vote closer to passing, and every no vote makes a proposal one vote farther away from passing.

The argument is not about whether some votes are more "powerful" than others, it's about whether we want proposals to only pass via a relatively strong consensus, or whether they should be allowed to pass on a weak consensus.
Click to expand...

70% of MNO have probability never voted, do you think being idealistic in such a case is good. so many good proposals don't pass because of this impractical super majority rule.
 
Dashmaximalist said:
70% of MNO have probability never voted, do you think being idealistic in such a case is good. so many good proposals don't pass because of this impractical super majority rule.
Click to expand...

In the current system I don't like the fact that a 1000-500 proposal passes but a 500-50 vote fails (although this would be very rare). But I also think in your proposed system, a 500-499 vote would pass and I think it could be detrimental to allow something to pass if it is that polarizing.
 
TroyDASH said:
In the current system I don't like the fact that a 1000-500 proposal passes but a 500-50 vote fails (although this would be very rare). But I also think in your proposed system, a 500-499 vote would pass and I think it could be detrimental to allow something to pass if it is that polarizing.
Click to expand...

we do simple majority based voting for pretty much everything in life , asking for super majority is giving extra value to NO voters unintentionally, which is not great when the stakes are higher like millions of $ we are seeing right now.

The idealistic supermajority voting probably only works when 80% of MNOs vote which is obviously never the case as we have observed.
 
TroyDASH said:
In the current system I don't like the fact that a 1000-500 proposal passes but a 500-50 vote fails (although this would be very rare). But I also think in your proposed system, a 500-499 vote would pass and I think it could be detrimental to allow something to pass if it is that polarizing.
Click to expand...
I agree. We should keep the majority vote system, but as such a large portion of MNOs are not even voting, maybe there should just be a proportional thing, with no minimum votes requirement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top