Pre-Proposal - Dash Governance by Community

Sorry yidakee, don't like this idea.

There's already a voting system, masternode owners should guard against bad or harmful ideas or projects. Throwing coins around adds no value, it devalues it.
Are you sure you are not hacked? :)
 
Vedran Yoweri said:
Sorry yidakee, don't like this idea.

There's already a voting system, masternode owners should guard against bad or harmful ideas or projects. Throwing coins around adds no value, it devalues it.
Are you sure you are not hacked? :)
Click to expand...

I know right... he is being sorta nice this week... and he referred to us as a "community" last week!

Someone check his IP...
 
I like the idea in theory, it's just that the governance of how the coins are used is the crucial part. If the fund manager(s) can propose/demonstrate that the funds are/will be used productively and fairly and transparently then I'm all for it. Just, make sure to establish a system that is well defined on how the coins are allowed to be used.
 
I don't like the idea either tbh. Just nominating people to hold excess funds does not seem like the best way to manage this. Even if we could do it at the protocol level you still need fund admins and you are asking for trouble when the funds each trusted party holds begin to balloon. Also, the "lost" coins serve a function by reducing just a little bit of supply and favoring those who participate in the ecosystem.

Pablo.
 
fible1 said:
I don't like the idea either tbh. Just nominating people to hold excess funds does not seem like the best way to manage this. Even if we could do it at the protocol level you still need fund admins and you are asking for trouble when the funds each trusted party holds begin to balloon. Also, the "lost" coins serve a function by reducing just a little bit of supply and favoring those who participate in the ecosystem.

Pablo.
Click to expand...

I perfectly understand the argument Pablo. But the non issuance of these funds is far far below, for example, than reward halving in terms of market liquidity. I argue that the effect of these non-issued coins diluted in time would be by far less beneficial at this stage, than to put them to good use for the benefit of Dash's ecosystem as a whole, and promote it's general awareness.

Also keep in mind, that by not being a contract or at a protocol level, but being month-to-month, anything that is not perfectly justified and accounting tightly done, would just be stopped. Funds would be managed by an admin, for example me or someone else who steps up, but the actual funds would be kept in a multi-sig address for extra security.

This proposal is actually a bit 'safer' than the next step in DGbB, as Managers will hold funds themselves, and as far as I know not in multi-sig, but in a direct contracor-contractee relationship. This iniciative also has the added benefit to be able to fund much smaller scale entrepeneurship, potentially bringing more developers too.

For example: Bounty to fix a problem. Fund a feature. App contest

My main reasoning behind this is two fold. First, not let these precious funds get away at this so early stage of our project, given the fierce competition we're facing out there. Also to empower the broader community itself to attract a new user base, possibly also discovering new talents out there. The entry point to being a Masternode has become quite high and may deter people from participating. This could be used to attract second-adopters and talent out there.

.
 
Vedran Yoweri said:
Sorry yidakee, don't like this idea.

There's already a voting system, masternode owners should guard against bad or harmful ideas or projects. Throwing coins around adds no value, it devalues it.
Are you sure you are not hacked? :)
Click to expand...

Not throwing coins around at all, only funding project with merits. Not hacked no :) Just and idea that sparked due to some discussion, and apparently Evan himself proposed this a while back
 
TroyDASH said:
I like the idea in theory, it's just that the governance of how the coins are used is the crucial part. If the fund manager(s) can propose/demonstrate that the funds are/will be used productively and fairly and transparently then I'm all for it. Just, make sure to establish a system that is well defined on how the coins are allowed to be used.
Click to expand...

Again, in this model there would be no managers. The community would manage it. The funds would be help in multi-sig address for safety. If the community votes 'yes', that projects would get funded. The projects would propose something with a deadline or achievement stage. Then it's up to the person getting those funds to produce results.

I'll refer in USD 'cos it's simpler to perceive the quantities.
Lets imagine someone with 3D skills ask 350 USD to produce a 3min animation video explaining the DGbB. He could present a storyboard, a timeline to deliver, and expenses (price per hour/work) and a little extra to pay for sound effects, voice over talent and audio work. He proposes get 50 to get started, 50 upon delivering an animation sketch, 50 after a few high quality renders, 100 for voice over, 100 after delivery. The community approves. After each successful stage he gets payed.

Dash gets a cool animation dirty cheap, developer gets a cool remuneration for it. Talent is discovered and Dash gain new multimedia work. All at the cost of no-one, except non minted coin.

If the developer fails to produce obvious workload, the community would automatically not want to fund him any longer, and at worse walk away with 50 bucks, loose all rep, and basically loose all credibility.

.
 
But why not use the existing budget system for these ideas?
Why should there be a separate system for it? Why should, possibly non dash holders, decide what these precious dash should be used for?
 
yidakee said:
Again, in this model there would be no managers. The community would manage it. The funds would be help in multi-sig address for safety. If the community votes 'yes', that projects would get funded. The projects would propose something with a deadline or achievement stage. Then it's up to the person getting those funds to produce results.

I'll refer in USD 'cos it's simpler to perceive the quantities.
Lets imagine someone with 3D skills ask 350 USD to produce a 3min animation video explaining the DGbB. He could present a storyboard, a timeline to deliver, and expenses (price per hour/work) and a little extra to pay for sound effects, voice over talent and audio work. He proposes get 50 to get started, 50 upon delivering an animation sketch, 50 after a few high quality renders, 100 for voice over, 100 after delivery. The community approves. After each successful stage he gets payed.

Dash gets a cool animation dirty cheap, developer gets a cool remuneration for it. Talent is discovered and Dash gain new multimedia work. All at the cost of no-one, except non minted coin.

If the developer fails to produce obvious workload, the community would automatically not want to fund him any longer, and at worse walk away with 50 bucks, loose all rep, and basically loose all credibility.

.
Click to expand...

Hell we could even just vote to make the news by "donating magic internet money mined from a Blockchain" directly to a charity of choice if we ran out of things to "fund" lol
 
Vedran Yoweri said:
But why not use the existing budget system for these ideas?
Why should there be a separate system for it? Why should, possibly non dash holders, decide what these precious dash should be used for?
Click to expand...

These items will be tiny items that most MN's could care less about nor needs a voting hand in EVERYTHING that goes down. Do they really care to vote on each of said artists sketches? Can't we just do a forum thread for this type of stuff?
 
TheDashGuy said:
These items will be tiny items that most MN's could care less about nor needs a voting hand in EVERYTHING that goes down. Do they really care to vote on each of said artists sketches? Can't we just do a forum thread for this type of stuff?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is the fundamental reasoning behind this.
 
TheDashGuy said:
These items will be tiny items that most MN's could care less about nor needs a voting hand in EVERYTHING that goes down. Do they really care to vote on each of said artists sketches? Can't we just do a forum thread for this type of stuff?
Click to expand...

Great idea, but funding it by our blockchain is not.
Put up the money yourself and or organize a crowdfund thing. If people like what you do they will donate. Hell, even i would if it's tiny and cool enough.
 
Vedran Yoweri said:
Great idea, but funding it by our blockchain is not.
Put up the money yourself and or organize a crowdfund thing. If people like what you do they will donate. Hell, even i would if it's tiny and cool enough.
Click to expand...

Whoa there buddy calm your investor ass down. Noone is hurting your investment here with this idea, if anything the funds are going to be used to grow that investment, but hey, what do I know.
 
The two critical issues with this idea are:

Storing Dash is a problem. It is exposed to theft(internal=wallet signers, or external=gov) or loss. Mainly I think it forces whoever signs the fund wallet to report income and submit income statements.

Allocating stored funds needs to unrestricted and only via voting. So having a multisig wallet is exposed vetos or just spending how "controllers" feel is "right".
 
yidakee said:
Again, in this model there would be no managers. The community would manage it. The funds would be help in multi-sig address for safety. If the community votes 'yes', that projects would get funded. The projects would propose something with a deadline or achievement stage. Then it's up to the person getting those funds to produce results.

I'll refer in USD 'cos it's simpler to perceive the quantities.
Lets imagine someone with 3D skills ask 350 USD to produce a 3min animation video explaining the DGbB. He could present a storyboard, a timeline to deliver, and expenses (price per hour/work) and a little extra to pay for sound effects, voice over talent and audio work. He proposes get 50 to get started, 50 upon delivering an animation sketch, 50 after a few high quality renders, 100 for voice over, 100 after delivery. The community approves. After each successful stage he gets payed.

Dash gets a cool animation dirty cheap, developer gets a cool remuneration for it. Talent is discovered and Dash gain new multimedia work. All at the cost of no-one, except non minted coin.

If the developer fails to produce obvious workload, the community would automatically not want to fund him any longer, and at worse walk away with 50 bucks, loose all rep, and basically loose all credibility.

.
Click to expand...

Right - by "manager" I just meant whoever or whatever group of people are holding and in control of the coins.

The most important piece is how is the "community" is defined, who gets to vote,...etc, so that way masternode ops can know what to look for as to whether the people controlling the coins are doing what they said they would do.

One of the drawbacks with the current proposals is that they are slow, and smaller proposals are not encouraged by the protocol. Having the community be able to decide what to do with a little remainder can be nice, but again it's all about how the decisions are made after the main proposal is funded.
 
TheDashGuy said:
Someone check his IP...
Click to expand...
Looks legit to me :)

This is a similar concept to what I have been harping about since we first started burning coins. My idea was to collect the coins into masternode's (we have already burned 3 or 4 with coins left behind) and then have those masternode's be owned and controlled by the foundation and then keep building the funds to help support the foundation and rewards from the foundation mn's could be put back into infrastructure costs such as code signing certificates, ssl certificates, dash hosting requirement's etc.

I wanted to see these fund's used in a way similar to that. I realize a lot of people counter this argument by saying that by having us not generate the coins we are improving everyone's interest in Dash but nobody seems to be concerned that any long term project needs to have funds in the kitty for when things happen. We want to have an app in the iTunes store but who's going to pay for it? Why wouldn't you want the foundation to have funds to do stuff like this. We haven't had a proper code signing certificate ever and when I suggested we buy one the response was that's way to expensive. Having foundation controlled mn's could have already helped in many ways.
 
Last edited:
coingun said:
Looks legit to me :)

This is a similar concept to what I have been harping about since we first started burning coins. My idea was to collect the coins into masternode's (we have already burned 3 or 4 with coins left behind) and then have those masternode's be owned and controlled by the foundation and then keep building the funds to help support the foundation and rewards from the foundation mn's could be put back into infrastructure costs such as code signing certificates, ssl certificates, dash hosting requirement's etc.

I wanted to see these fund's used in a way similar to that.
Click to expand...

You really do want an skynet I see.. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top