• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Pre-Proposal: Alternative Budget System. How much do you pay for someone to do a job?

Would you like to be able to vote how much DASH do you give for a budget proposal?

  • Total voters
    7
demo

demo

Well-known member
Now that the price of Dash tripled in USD, some proposals that have been voted 3 months ago will get 3 times more the price they asked!!! And if the Dash price falls, some job proposals that are asking today for a specific amount of DASH will get nothing. Is that fair? Lets see how this can be solved. Apart from this alternative budget system, there is also yet another alternative budget system (initially posted here) that differs tottaly to the one the community currently uses .

how much do you pay for someone to do a job ?

This should be a subject to vote, using numbers. You may vote inbetween 0 dash, and the whole (or remaining) monthly budget (of course if someone allocates all his number vote to one proposal, there is no room for him to vote for another proposal, in the same budget cycle). Then the system calculates the mean average of all votes in order to specify the final amount the community gives, to the one who will manage to accomplish the job. And of course everyone may change his number vote whenever he/she wishes, so the system is tottaly flexible to both the expected quality of the job and the USD/DASH price fluctuations.

As you may have observed the above is a tottaly new budget system and a totally new way to deal with money allocations in the budget. There is the current budget system where someone proposes a budget allocation and receives yes/no votes for it, and there is this totally different budget system where someone proposes to the community a job that is able to accomplish, and people give him amounts of money (by using the number voting capability) they think he deserves for this job.

This alternative budget system may be used on top of the basic yes/no approval. The yes/no initial approval is essential in order to avoid troll proposals that are asking the whole budget and beeing voted by few MNOs in order to get the small fee that occurs as a result of the mean average of all numerical votes. So only in case a proposal passes the yes/no vote, will enter into this alternative budget system. Alternatively in order to avoid trolls and in case you dont want to use the initial yes/no vote, instead of using the mean average, you can use the mode average or the median average to calculate the result (and additionaly set a minimum participation in the vote, this minimum may also be valid for the yes/no vote too).

Or another alternative way is to say that each vote counts as:
"amount= 2 X allocated_budget/number_of_masternodes"
and everyone who votes for a proposal should pay with his own wallet the half of the above amount. So the persons who want to troll the system, they are actually paying for voting, so they are unable to troll!

This is a government question that will be added in the governance system if it gets support here, and if I manage to find the 5 dash proposal fee. And if it passes the governance system voting, an implementation proposal will follow.

The government question: Would you like to be able to vote how much DASH you give for a budget proposal?

P.S. This government question has been posted also here.
 
Last edited:
You're not going to win such a change to the budget system. Imo, the best approach is to propose new systems that run in parallel with the existing system. In particular, I would like to see crowdfunding and a tender system so that people can compete for the same job.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
You're not going to win such a change to the budget system. Imo, the best approach is to propose new systems that run in parallel with the existing system. In particular, I would like to see crowdfunding and a tender system so that people can compete for the same job.
Click to expand...


The initial problem is that some people promise to do a Job in a specific price, and they get different money for their job because of the DASH's price fluctuations.This cannot be solved with systems that run in parallel with the existing system. The existing system will remain unjust and this unjustness will also affect all the parallel systems (which depend on the existing system).

You may say, lets all denominate in USD. But not all people are from US and they understand differently the price of DASH. They also understand in a different way how much money a job worths, and this depends to their local currency which also have price fluctuations compared to USD. There is not a common reference, the dash community is multinational, so the solution is to vote the numbers for this.
 
Last edited:
Also the problem is that the actual decision making system is part of how DASH works, and as such the coins get "printed" on demand. This is both really good, and limited on how good the decision making system is. Even if we made a perfect alternative decision making system we would be dependent upon the dash programmers to implement it. And any decision taken, would still not produce any dash printed. Really, the alternative is to create a new coin which starts with a governance system. Even how many coins get printed each period should be voted. Also there should be systems in place that tries to avoid people from having too many masternodes (read votes). The whole point of the wisdom of the crowd comes from a number of papers, and those papers represented situations were each person had one vote.
 
Pietro Speroni said:
Even if we made a perfect alternative decision making system we would be dependent upon the dash programmers to implement it. And any decision taken, would still not produce any dash printed. Really, the alternative is to create a new coin which starts with a governance system. Even how many coins get printed each period should be voted. Also there should be systems in place that tries to avoid people from having too many masternodes (read votes). The whole point of the wisdom of the crowd comes from a number of papers, and those papers represented situations were each person had one vote.
Click to expand...

I am looking forward for this new coin. Lets start it now, as a Dash or as a PIVX (or as a Tezos?) fork.

<vote history>
Would you like to be able to vote how much DASH do you give for a budget proposal?
*yes 2 vote(s) 66.7%
no 1 vote(s) 33.3%
other 0 vote(s) 0.0%
</vote history>
 
It can't work this way because it allows for the possibility for Masternodes to vote to pay out less than the contractor is willing to accept, in which case the contractor has no obligation to actually do the work.

If a proposal owner needs their payment to be denominated in fiat, just use an escrow service.
 
TroyDASH said:
It can't work this way because it allows for the possibility for Masternodes to vote to pay out less than the contractor is willing to accept, in which case the contractor has no obligation to actually do the work.
Click to expand...

And whats wrong with this? This is a feature, not a bug!
The MNOs vote a specific amount they want to pay for a specific job, and in case the contractor refuses to do the work, another contractor may appear!
Or if nobody appears, then the MNOs could increase the amount (by voting the numbers again)

<vote histroy>
Would you like to be able to vote how much DASH do you give for a budget proposal?
*yes 2 vote(s) 50.0%
no 2 vote(s) 50.0%
other 0 vote(s) 0.0%
</vote histrory>
 
Last edited:
demo said:
And whats wrong with this?
The MNOs are paying this, and in case the contractor refuse to do the work, another contractor may appear.
Or if nobody appears, then the MNOs could increase the amount (by voting the numbers)
Click to expand...

Why pay out the money at all though if the contractor is not going to do it?
In the current system, the proposer can always try a lower amount if they are willing to do that after their original proposal is voted down.
 
TroyDASH said:
Why pay out the money at all though if the contractor is not going to do it?
In the current system, the proposer can always try a lower amount if they are willing to do that after their original proposal is voted down.
Click to expand...

This system is not about paying out the money.
It is about to allow the MNOs to vote the numbers and say how much money the offer for a job.
Whenever someone appears and is willing to do this job for this money, then the contract is signed.

And there is an alternative implementation, a contractor to declare that he will do the job for a specific amount of money, and then the MNOs to cast a conditional number vote saying:

IF your proposal's cost will become lower than X amount of Dash, THEN I vote YES.
 
Last edited:
demo said:
This system is not about paying out the money.
It is about to allow the MNOs to vote the numbers and say how much money the offer for a job.
Whenever someone appears and is willing to do this job for this money, then the contract is signed.
Click to expand...

Many projects are unique to the proposal owner -- it's not like a software project where the masternodes get to spec everything out and just anyone can do it. If someone proposes to sponsor the Crypto Show, or sponsor Dash Aerosports, or do an airdrop on Huobi, how many other people are going to come forward and say hey I can do the exact same thing for less?
 
TroyDASH said:
Many projects are unique to the proposal owner -- it's not like a software project where the masternodes get to spec everything out and just anyone can do it. If someone proposes to sponsor the Crypto Show, or sponsor Dash Aerosports, or do an airdrop on Huobi, how many other people are going to come forward and say hey I can do the exact same thing for less?
Click to expand...

Nobody is irreplaceable. If something requires someone to be irreplaceable, then this is most of the times unnecessary.

Furthermore, the usefulness of what I say refers to all the rest cases you just mentioned (development, software projects e.t.c). You voted NO in the poll, although you clearly state that this is usefull at least in some cases.

Your NO vote in the poll doesnt make sense. You are cleary suffering of voting-number-o-phobia. Go meet a doctor to cure you.

<vote histrory>
Would you like to be able to vote how much DASH do you give for a budget proposal?
*yes 2 vote(s) 40.0%
no 3 vote(s) 60.0%
other 0 vote(s) 0.0%
</vote histrory>
 
demo said:
Nobody is irreplaceable. If something requires someone to be irreplaceable, then this is most of the times unnecessary.

Furthermore, the usefulness of what I say refers to all the rest cases you just mentioned (development, software projects e.t.c). You voted NO in the poll, although you clearly state that this is usefull at least in some cases.

Your NO vote in the poll doesnt make sense. You are cleary suffering of voting-number-o-phobia. Go meet a doctor to cure you.

<vote histrory>
Would you like to be able to vote how much DASH do you give for a budget proposal?
*yes 2 vote(s) 40.0%
no 3 vote(s) 60.0%
other 0 vote(s) 0.0%
</vote histrory>
Click to expand...

Sure, there are some cases where it might be useful to have a better way for the network to negotiate with proposal owners. However if I would be putting this on a priority list on a scale of 1 to 10, it would be at about 0. The current system is sufficient and there are many more important things to focus on than a total overhaul of the governance.
 
demo said:
if I would be putting this on a priority list on a scale of 1 to 10, it would be at about 12.
Click to expand...

Why? Proposal owners that need to be paid in fiat already have options to go through escrow, and proposal owners that are willing to assume the volatility risk can submit in dash. Competition is already possible because anyone can submit a similar proposal for less cost. Why should we divert resources into this instead of focusing on evolution?
 
TroyDASH said:
Why? Proposal owners that need to be paid in fiat already have options to go through escrow, and proposal owners that are willing to assume the volatility risk can submit in dash.
Click to expand...

Escrow is filthy centralized. We have to avoid centralization, this is rule number 1.
 
Last edited:
I'm in TroyDASH's camp. Not only many but most of the proposals seem to me to be unique to their owners, either in the sense that they are tied to a specific sponsorship of an event or action, or revolve around some form of intellectual property or concept unique to the owner and their personality, for example a youtube channel or creative concept or personal network.

If there are tasks completely specced out by the core team that need to be outsourced then that is a tender, not a proposal. It's the complete opposite direction of a proposal, in that the core is looking outwards with a defined goal in mind, rather than being pitched by people outside with different insights, skills or ideas that aren't and can't be entirely generated from within. Both have their place, but shouldn't be conflated in my opinion. If anything, an alternative process needs to exist for the tender type scenarios, but doesn't require the current proposal system to be changed or scrapped. Both could and perhaps should exist in parallel.
 
Monachilada said:
I'm in TroyDASH's camp. Not only many but most of the proposals seem to me to be unique to their owners, either in the sense that they are tied to a specific sponsorship of an event or action, or revolve around some form of intellectual property or concept unique to the owner and their personality, for example a youtube channel or creative concept or personal network.

If there are tasks completely specced out by the core team that need to be outsourced then that is a tender, not a proposal. It's the complete opposite direction of a proposal, in that the core is looking outwards with a defined goal in mind, rather than being pitched by people outside with different insights, skills or ideas that aren't and can't be entirely generated from within. Both have their place, but shouldn't be conflated in my opinion. If anything, an alternative process needs to exist for the tender type scenarios, but doesn't require the current proposal system to be changed or scrapped. Both could and perhaps should exist in parallel.
Click to expand...

Of course I agree that the two budget systems should exist in parallel.

But I dont agree that the existing budget system should stay unchanged. Suppose that I make a proposal (a one that isnt and can't be entirely generated from within the core team). And I am asking 100 dash for it. Shouldnt the masternodes be allowed to vote that they approve this work only in case it costs 50 Dash? Why do you want to prohibit the masternodes to negotiate for a better price?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top