Pre-Proposal: If there is no lamassu deliverable , should the masternodes who voted for it pay?
- Thread starter demo
- Start date
- Status
demo
Well-known member
Lets do the calculations...
........
The cost of the project was approximately 7000 dash, and 1459 masternodes voted yes so each one of them must give approximately 5 dash , to cover the loss.
And to make it more interesting maybe the 1459 who voted yes should give the money to the 486 who voted no.
........
The cost of the project was approximately 7000 dash, and 1459 masternodes voted yes so each one of them must give approximately 5 dash , to cover the loss.
And to make it more interesting maybe the 1459 who voted yes should give the money to the 486 who voted no.
Last edited:
demo
Well-known member
By the way, when you rate me as a troll those are my badges, as long as you give your likes to Minotaur.
Last edited:
I have been around long enough to know that many projects fail in business they are not all successful. Learn from your mistakes and carry on....Masternodes should not have to pay this back. I would expect that Ira Miller pay back the funds if there has not been any work delivered to a high standard.
What I do NOT like however is the silence:
1) Core team letting this drag on without taking responsibility to find out whats going on and inform the community. Many of them have direct contact to Ira Miller and Daniel. All it takes is a phone call to demand whats going on! It ISNT THAT HARD.
2) Making excuses like we should have some info soon and never delivering upon those expectations.
3) Possibly hoping that by staying quiet this will somehow be forgotten.
@kot @babygiraffe - If I were you, I would set aside some time in your busy schedules to get to the bottom of this or risk damaging your work even further.
What I do NOT like however is the silence:
1) Core team letting this drag on without taking responsibility to find out whats going on and inform the community. Many of them have direct contact to Ira Miller and Daniel. All it takes is a phone call to demand whats going on! It ISNT THAT HARD.
2) Making excuses like we should have some info soon and never delivering upon those expectations.
3) Possibly hoping that by staying quiet this will somehow be forgotten.
@kot @babygiraffe - If I were you, I would set aside some time in your busy schedules to get to the bottom of this or risk damaging your work even further.
demo
Well-known member
This is your argument.
My argument is:
In case the money is lost, then make the masternodes pay for the fiasco, so that way the next time they will think to vote for bullshits, they will be more cautious.
Good luck getting this to happen...be realistic.....I think the lesson has been learned (well hopefully) by the masternode community.
demo
Well-known member
If you dont pay, you dont pay attention of what they are saying to you. You dont pay me, so you dont pay attention of what I am saying. You pay amanda and the rest marketeers, so you pay attention of what they say. You pay to tell you things you like to hear, instead of paying someone to tell you things you dont like to hear. Thats why you are misled.
You have to pay , in order to learn.
The lesson has not been learned, if the masternodes dont pay for the loss.
I am realistic. 4253-1459=2794 masternodes lost from this case. And 1459 (those who voted yes) may (or may not) earned some profit. So if this community is a healthy one and not a fraud, then the rational thing is the majority of the masternodes to force the minority (who are responsible for this fiasco) to pay.
The behavior of the community on this issue will reveal to any objective external observer whether this community is a fraud or not.
Last edited:
noobtrader
Active member
even if this proposal passed, i wonder how you will enfore those MN holder to pay ? most of those MN holder will just remove their MN and recreate MN using another address.
the only logical proposal would be asking those lamassu proposal submitter for refund.
the only logical proposal would be asking those lamassu proposal submitter for refund.
demo
Well-known member
Recreate a new MN using the same Dash coins? Do you beleive this is safe? If you use the Dash coins belonging to a guilty MN in order to create a new MN , then you will be discovered! The Blockchain is transparent, remember?
Futhermore , and as long as it is very hard for the guilties to hide themselves into a transparent blockchain, there is a method (which is described here) in order to enforce the guilties to pay the 5 dash coins they owe.
This is the first logical proposal, but not the only one.
IF the first logical proposal you just mentioned fails, then my proposal is the logical proposal that follows.
The way the community will vote on this issue will reveal to any objective external observer whether this community is a fraud or not.
Last edited:
noobtrader
Active member
i think u never heard of privatesend, meh... anyway those MN can just be sold and u got nothing.
i think the other alternative should award those who voted no... its a matter of carrot and stick, yin and yang. those who voted "no" has shown wisdom, they should be rewarded.
i think the other alternative should award those who voted no... its a matter of carrot and stick, yin and yang. those who voted "no" has shown wisdom, they should be rewarded.
demo
Well-known member
Sell a guilty Masternode? And who is gonna buy it? And lets say there is someone who wants to buy a guilty Masternode, then our goal is accomplished! Everything is ok in case the guilty/stupid decides to sell his masternode, because in that case the stupid/guilty has no voting rights anymore, thus the community wins!
I think you have never heard about Coinfirm and about the big data analysis... meh.... We are living in a transparent blockchain, remember? Do you bet whether or not the guilty Masternodes can hide using privatesend? Do you?
Rewarded by who?
I already proposed those who correctly voted "no" to be rewarded by those who incorrectly voted "yes". This is a fair reward.
Rewarded by who? Rewarded from the budget remainings? This is unfair, as long as those who voted "no" also have equal shares into the budget , so it is unfair to make them pay from their own share. Additionaly it is also unfair to indirectly make pay those who propose new creative proposals, by diminishing the budget total some.
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
This is unenforceable. Or at least, the cost of enforcing it would far exceed the wasted dash in the first place, not to mention the time it would take to develop. But I agree with @Stealth923 -- somebody needs to step up to the plate on this. I am not going to be content to just write this off and forget about it.
demo
Well-known member
Make the masternodes pay for the fiasco, so that the next time they will think a lot before deciding to vote for bullshits, this is priceless!!!
TroyDASH
Well-known member
It isn't necessary. MNs already have a significant financial stake in the success of the network.
demo
Well-known member
Do you honestly believe that those 1459 masternodes who voted "yes" want the success of the network? And even if they want the success of the network, do you really believe that with their stupid votes they can turn the network succesfull?
The network's profit is to get rid of the persons operating those 1459 masternodes.
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
I don't believe, I know, that people don't hold investments in things when they don't want the value of that investment to go up.
Maybe? Fortunately for us, masternodes change hands all the time, and the distribution of Masternodes is likely to slowly change towards more people who had to put up more capital up front for them, aka people who are more likely to make good wealth management decisions.
demo
Well-known member
By the way, the 1459 "Yes" became now 1457 "Yes".
At least two of them recognize, even if it is late, their fault.
At least two of them recognize, even if it is late, their fault.
demo
Well-known member
Those 1459 may want their investment to go up, but do you honestly believe that they are also capable to make their investment to go up when they vote like that?
And why all the rest masternode operators, the majority which voted "no" or abstained, to tolerate the stupidity of the persons operating those 1459 masternodes?
They should not tolerate them, they should punish them, using the power of the majority.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
You can't use abstain and automatically group it with the no votes. It would also be true that "the vast majority voted yes or abstained". Abstaining means you are okay with the status quo. And if the proposal is funded, then abstaining means you don't care about defunding it
demo
Well-known member
Abstaining also means that you are not informed, or that you are not aware of whats happening. Abstaining may also means you do not agree with the voting procedure and with the budget system as a whole. The budget system was not voted, it was imposed, remember?
Anyway, nobody knows exactly what abstain means.
The interest of the majority is those 1459 to be punished. Let the majority of the masternodes to decide whether they want to punish those 1459 idiots, or not. If they majority abstains, it is obvious that those 1459 will not be punished.
And of course (the most important thing is this) the way the community will vote on this issue will reveal to any objective external observer whether this community is a fraud or not. Because if the majority decides against their interest, this means that either there is a fraud or they are stupid. And this is a very usefull information for any objective external observer (and potential investor).
Last edited:
- Status