Pre-Proposal: Adaptive Proposal Fees

[demo]

Put up or shut up. So far, the only people that have submitted governance proposals are Evan, myself and @Technologov

I also offer 20% of my whole dash fortune for the below specific dash governance proposal.
Its not my fault that the governance proposals are so expensive and I cannot add one. So please count @demo nearby Evan, you and @Technologov.

So lets go back before the arrival of @Technologov.

Is anyone interested in creating a multisig address, and do a fundrasing in order to reach the amount of 5 dash and be able to add a proposal in the governance system asking the 5 dash proposal fee to remain the same?

Lets start a list of the people who are interested in this fundrasing. Whenever the list reaches the 5 dash goal, we are going to vote for the person who we trust he creates the multisig address, and vote the minimum (m) number of signatures required to spend the money. Everyone may gives whatever he/she wants, even a single duff is welcome, and he/she may defines whatever terms or conditions he/she desires in order to give the amount. The only expected is to keep his/her promise.

The list follows (it will be updated accordingly):

1. Myself @demo ( XnpT2YQaYpyh7F9twM6EtDMn1TCDCEEgNX ) : I initially offer 20% of my entire fortune in Dash for this puprose ( 20% of my Dash fortune is currently set to 0.1899 dash, since the above Dash address is the only non-empty I possess). Until the creation of the multisig address I keep the right to reduce or increase what I offer. But after the multisig address has been created, I hereby declare, on oath, that I will give the declared amount.

 

[priestc]

@dashly, the problem I have with pegging the value to silver is that there are no crypto -> silver markets that I know of from where to pull the price from. Whatever currency the fee is denominated in, it needs to have two properties:

1. It have a stable price
2. It have a lot of volume and be implemented on many exchanges.

Silver satisfies criteria 1 better than USD, but does not do better than USD on criteria 2. USD and BTC are the best choices in regards to criteria 2, but the BTC price is not stable at all, so USD wins.

If you make the price be part of the protocol, it needs to be calculated in a completely deterministic way. One node can't have a value for exchange rate and another node with a different value. All nodes need to come to the same value (or at least within a narrow margin). That is why I think existing crypto exchanges like polonies, bittrex and btce should be used to determine the "protocol exchange rate".

 

[Kevin Stalker]

I would vote against any link to usd. I dont live in usa and current us debt linked to the new president makes it all look risky from here. Of course no other currency has my confidence either.

Only gold would work for me. Or perhaps the ftse.

Earlier suggestions of a monthly vote can be a problem because very high positive numbers scew the average, for example a vote of 1000000. Remember that this is critcal. If we break our voting system we cant vote to fix it.

 

[demo]

Earlier suggestions of a monthly vote can be a problem because very high positive numbers scew the average, for example a vote of 1000000. Remember that this is critcal. If we break our voting system we cant vote to fix it.

Man you can solve the problem with those who cast very high number votes in order to screw the average. Excommunicate them!

I really believe that the mean average is the best selection process, if it is combined with a threat of excommunication for those who are far away from the average. So you allow the freedom of choice, but you maintain the excommunication/ostracism threat for the individuals who constantly vote outrageous.

Excommunication/ostracism in the sense that they lose their voting rights, not their money.

 

[Kevin Stalker]

How about this....

Every month the masternodes vote to for either "up", "same", or "down". The majority wins. If "up" wins the price goes up by 10%, if "down" wins the price goes down by 10%, otherwise it stays the same.

That way we can adapt to situations. If there are too many proposals the price will gradually rise, etc. I cant see how it can be hacked or broken.

Brilliant.

 

[UdjinM6]

...
At this point, I just want someone from core to tell me this is reasonably feasible.

@UdjinM6 A new vote command could trigger a spork to modify the proposal fee each month?

It can be done via "traditional" spork, we just need to add a new one on next major release. However, I would like to avoid that and actually try to decrease number of "traditional" sporks and shift control to masternodes by implementing smth which can be seen as "masternode spork". Basically, the idea you described which is to let MNs to vote and decide on some predefined set of network params. From design point this looks pretty much like hardcoded proposals with some special type of trigger (which won't be mined but instead will be "applied" to next budget cycle in some way) and we _should_ be able to reuse much of existing governance code in both dashd and sentinel. We have this on our list but it's too early to say if it really feasible or not. If we fail to make this work in short term, we can reuse good old "traditional" sporks as a temporary fix I guess. Long term - it should be either algorithmic like diff adjustment or "masternode spork" imo.

 

[Kevin Stalker]

Man you can solve the problem with those who cast very high number votes in order to screw the average. Excommunicate them!

I really believe that the mean average is the best selection process, if it is combined with a threat of excommunication for those who are far away from the average. So you allow the freedom of choice, but you maintain the excommunication/ostracism threat for those who constantly vote outrageous.

Excommunication rules? Built into the dash protocol? Madness

 

[demo]

Excommunication rules? Built into the dash protocol? Madness

Yup. It requires a proof of individuality first.
You spot the individuals, and whoever individual votes outrageous, he may be judged by the whole community as stupid or spy, and excommunicated (means he loses his voting rights)

 

[Kevin Stalker]

How about this....

Every month the masternodes vote to for either "up", "same", or "down". The majority wins. If "up" wins the price goes up by 10%, if "down" wins the price goes down by 10%, otherwise it stays the same.

That way we can adapt to situations. If there are too many proposals the price will gradually rise, etc. I cant see how it can be hacked or broken.

Brilliant.

 

[dashly]

It have a lot of volume and be implemented on many exchanges.

Take a look back at the post where I made the calculation. There doesn't have to be a silver to Dash exhange... There are plenty of Silver to Fiat exchanges, and also plenty of Fiat to Crypto exchanges. So it would work very well. It could be calculated against multiple currency (USD, CNY, RMB, Euro, PHP, etc.) conversions from silver and averaged out so it doesn't matter if a currency is stable or not... It also doesn't matter if there is inflation. Again, I ask that you look at my post where the calculation is done. All you would need is FX exhanges (which there are a lot) and Crypto exchanges (also a lot). Btw, if 4 oz of silver was used, a proposal would cost almost exactly 1 Dash today.

Honestly though, I don't care which solution we go with as long as we go with one. @GrandMasterDash's solution is also a very good solution.

 

[dashly]

How about this....

Every month the masternodes vote to for either "up", "same", or "down". The majority wins. If "up" wins the price goes up by 10%, if "down" wins the price goes down by 10%, otherwise it stays the same.

That way we can adapt to situations. If there are too many proposals the price will gradually rise, etc. I cant see how it can be hacked or broken.

Brilliant.

Yes, another good solution!

 

[demo]

How about this....

Every month the masternodes vote to for either "up", "same", or "down". The majority wins. If "up" wins the price goes up by 10%, if "down" wins the price goes down by 10%, otherwise it stays the same.

That way we can adapt to situations. If there are too many proposals the price will gradually rise, etc. I cant see how it can be hacked or broken.

Brilliant.

Its not a bad idea, but why 10% increase and not 5% increase?
And why the masternodes to vote every month, and not every day, or every year?
And why the majority (50%+1) wins? Who says that?
And what if the result is 33% "up", 33% "same" and 33% "down"? What do you do in that case? Where is the majority (50%+1) then ?

Hardcoded numbers and hardcoded selection processes again....

 

[Kevin Stalker]

Yes, another good solution!

Its brill. The problem right now is we cant tell what affect price changes will have on the number of proposals, so we need a solution which adapts. And its simple.

 

[Kevin Stalker]

I made it up. But this is a monthly vote, so small percentages would take too long.

 

[Kevin Stalker]

Masternode votes are counted monthly at the moment.

 

[demo]

Masternode votes are counted monthly at the moment.

No they arent. It depends on how you set up the proposal. You could setup a proposal that last for example 12 months, so the masternode votes will be valid for 12 months. So counting the votes every month is hardcoded. You could count every two months, and who says that counting every two tmonths is better that counting every one month?

The votes are counted every month in order to receive the requested budget amount. This is normal for the implementation proposals, but it is irrelevant to the governance proposals, which do not ask any amount from the budget (except the return fee). I think you confuse this, thats why you believe that the votes are counted every month. The monthly count refers to the implementation proposals and it is irrelevant to the governance proposals, which may be counted in whatever time quanta someone wishes. In a governance proposal you could also start counting the votes immediatly after submiting the proposal, and not count the votes in time quanta.

IMHO you should set up a governance proposal that last forever, and count the masternode votes every single tiny second, and for ever. Infinite is better than quantization. This cannot be done in the current DASH governance system because the maximum a proposal can last is 25 months (25 montly budget payements). So the same it is for whatever proposal is clasiffied as governance. After 25 months your "governance law" may be considered as invalid, as long as after the expiration it will not represent the view of the masternodes. So you have to resubmit it. This must be fixed, and the time a proposal lasts should extend more in order to support the governance questions.

 

[demo]

Basically, the idea you described which is to let MNs to vote and decide on some predefined set of network params.

Although I prefer the MNs to be able to vote and decide on all params (and even vote and ignite code chuncks), a predefined set is a good start.
What params do you plan to allow the MNs to vote?

 

[GDASHMoney]

My solution to this problem is to fix the proposal fee to a fiat amount. Say $50. The next problem is how does the protocol enforce an exchange rate? You could institute an official "dash exchange rate" by taking a vote from master node owners to select the official exchanges whose current market price make up the official exchange rate. For instance, one master node could vote "bittrex,poloniex", while another could vote "poloniex, btce". To get the current price you gather everyone's votes and created a index out of the weighted average of each exchange's market price. Sort of like the winkdex, but with master nodes voting on the sources of the index.

This seems like a practical, fairly simple solution to the problem. A fixed rate in fiat would simplify the issue, since the value of DASH is inherently going to fluctuate.

Also, to not stifle opportunity for creative proposals from all walks of life, let's keep it relatively "affordable" so as not to shoot ourselves in the foot by creating our own barriers to entry for would be, could be DASH marketing geniuses.. (ahem).

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I would vote against any link to usd. I dont live in usa and current us debt linked to the new president makes it all look risky from here. Of course no other currency has my confidence either.

Only gold would work for me. Or perhaps the ftse.

Earlier suggestions of a monthly vote can be a problem because very high positive numbers scew the average, for example a vote of 1000000. Remember that this is critcal. If we break our voting system we cant vote to fix it.

Please read how median averages work. If I make this proposal, I will have to include a basic math lesson because this keeps coming up. If you have, say, 100 people voting and, say, 40 people voting for 1000000 dash proposal fee, it still doesn't affect the price because the votes are placed into sequence and the middle number selected (or, if there is an even number of votes, it's the average of the two middle votes).

However, I concede a few fail-safes will need to be put into place. For example, if there's less than 1% of MN voting on the proposal fee then the price automatically reverts to 5 dash (in homage to the original value).

 

[GDASHMoney]

Please read how median averages work. If I make this proposal, I will have to include a basic math lesson because this keeps coming up. If you have, say, 100 people voting and, say, 40 people voting for 1000000 dash proposal fee, it still doesn't affect the price because the votes are placed into sequence and the middle number selected (or, if there is an even number of votes, it's the average of the two middle votes).

However, I concede a few fail-safes will need to be put into place. For example, if there's less than 1% of MN voting on the proposal fee then the price automatically reverts to 5 dash (in homage to the original value).

What about pegging the fee to something non fiat, like, say the current spot price of an ounce of .999 pure Silver?