Pre-Proposal: The Lockdown

[Masternode_Buzz]

Let's start with the dash dao, the self-sufficiency machine. After all these years, what products or services remain? Nearly all the great dash projects fell apart. Dash Central is *still* the center of the universe because, well, the alternatives failed.

• Dash Direct, gone.
• Trust Protectors, gone.
• Dash Invests (DIF), website down, "Error establishing a database connection"
• Thorchain, prolonged then dropped and handed over to Maya Protocol.
• 5x lower proposals fees.. and still outsiders don't come. Even the spammers stay away!
• Bitrefill, dash right at the bottom of their list of coins. There is no real alternative to bitrefill with the range of vouchers and countries.. if they ever drop dash, then what?
• Failed regulatory dialogue, including Japan.
• Country specific dash embassies, gone.
• Coin Mixing still takes hours.
• A marketing hub that refuses to publish analytics.
• No presence on the decred DEX.
• Next to zero press coverage / regular trading analysis.
• 6 months academic ZKP research for dash dao voting, never materialized.

This kind of failure is systemic and quite evident with the price of dash at 26 USD.

So you say this proposal, "will hugely affect the ability for proposals to pass moving forward" but given the above track record, can we really consider this a loss given the flipside is all stakeholders benefiting from less dash being produced every month. And if what you say is true, "some masternode operators (a large chunk actually) are not interested in DAO governance" then we are allowing a minority of MNOs - without any proven track record - to run the show.

You'd agree that Dash's situation is not peculiar. The same problem is present is several other DAOs. I am the lead writer for both Masternode Buzz and DAO Times (you may have read some of my articles). So, I am familiar with some of the internal problems within DAO communities.

If I understand you correctly, there has been a consistent lack of accountability. Proposals have been passed and outcomes have not been met.

That said, are there mechanisms in place to prevent this? If yes, why are they not working? Whose job is it to ensure that things get done?
I can't agree less with your asserting that minority of MNOs are running the show; numbers don't lie. What counts here is your voting power and popularity, which needs to change for things to improve.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

You'd agree that Dash's situation is not peculiar. The same problem is present is several other DAOs. I am the lead writer for both Masternode Buzz and DAO Times (you may have read some of my articles). So, I am familiar with some of the internal problems within DAO communities.

If I understand you correctly, there has been a consistent lack of accountability. Proposals have been passed and outcomes have not been met.

That said, are there mechanisms in place to prevent this? If yes, why are they not working? Whose job is it to ensure that things get done?
I can't agree less with your asserting that minority of MNOs are running the show; numbers don't lie. What counts here is your voting power and popularity, which needs to change for things to improve.

If it's a multi-month proposal then MNO's can in theory de-fund it but this itself has complications. For example, a long time ago there was a project by Alt36 and they kept stringing us along for years; a few teaser updates and videos, and the current CEO of DCG telling everyone how they were doing wonderful things. That's pretty much how all of it works; a few people who bother voting are heavily influenced by one or two people, usually those within DCG. A lot of trust exists, mainly because if you don't vote DCG then who else is there to take their place? - no one because there is no vibrant competitive marketplace for such things.

The dash treasury is mostly a grants system with almost no enforcement. The Dash Incubator might be slightly better but I'm not familiar enough with their workings to say more.

 

[AgnewPickens]

If it's a multi-month proposal then MNO's can in theory de-fund it but this itself has complications. For example, a long time ago there was a project by Alt36 and they kept stringing us along for years; a few teaser updates and videos, and the current CEO of DCG telling everyone how they were doing wonderful things. That's pretty much how all of it works; a few people who bother voting are heavily influenced by one or two people, usually those within DCG. A lot of trust exists, mainly because if you don't vote DCG then who else is there to take their place? - no one because there is no vibrant competitive marketplace for such things.

The dash treasury is mostly a grants system with almost no enforcement. The Dash Incubator might be slightly better but I'm not familiar enough with their workings to say more.

The Gummint eased federal banking regulations for the cannabis industry midway thru the Alt-36 adventure.

 

[xkcd]

If it's a multi-month proposal then MNO's can in theory de-fund it but this itself has complications. For example, a long time ago there was a project by Alt36 and they kept stringing us along for years; a few teaser updates and videos, and the current CEO of DCG telling everyone how they were doing wonderful things. That's pretty much how all of it works; a few people who bother voting are heavily influenced by one or two people, usually those within DCG. A lot of trust exists, mainly because if you don't vote DCG then who else is there to take their place? - no one because there is no vibrant competitive marketplace for such things.

The dash treasury is mostly a grants system with almost no enforcement. The Dash Incubator might be slightly better but I'm not familiar enough with their workings to say more.

The DAO was not really at fault here, the scheme was endorsed by then DCG CEO Ryan Taylor, false information was fed to the DAO, Dash Watch was blocked from auditing ALT36, it was a fraud and eventually when that became clear, it was no longer funded. I think the MNOs have learned a lesson from that and in the future will start asking questions sooner, we kind of see that with the FTL proposal currently failing to pass for what I assume is a failure to directly disclose to the network a change in their broadcasting schedule. In the yesteryears, that proposal would have had no trouble passing.

 

[vazaki3]

The DAO was not really at fault here, the scheme was endorsed by then DCG CEO Ryan Taylor, false information was fed to the DAO, Dash Watch was blocked from auditing ALT36, it was a fraud and eventually when that became clear, it was no longer funded. I think the MNOs have learned a lesson from that and in the future will start asking questions sooner, we kind of see that with the FTL proposal currently failing to pass for what I assume is a failure to directly disclose to the network a change in their broadcasting schedule. In the yesteryears, that proposal would have had no trouble passing.

Are you trying to find excuses for the stupidity of the Mastenodes?

You said that MNOs were fooled because ALT36 proposal was not audited by DashWatch, after the intervention of the infamous @babygiraffe.

But what about now? DCG proposal was also and still is not audited at all, by any kind of DashWatch (actually the Dashwatch idea is totally out of the question), because of the negligence (or intervention?) of the infamous @QuantumExplorer .

The Masternodes keep doing the same mistake multiple times, and this is certainly a property of the stupid.

 

[AgnewPickens]

Are you trying to find excuses for the stupidity of the Mastenodes?

You said that MNOs were fooled because ALT36 proposal was not audited by DashWatch, after the intervention of the infamous @babygiraffe.

But what about now? DCG proposal was also and still is not audited at all, by any kind of DashWatch (actually the Dashwatch idea is tottaly out of the question), because of the negligence (or intervention?) of the infamous @QuantumExplorer .

The Masternodes keep doing the same mistake multiple times, and this is certainly a property of the stupid.

Totally*

 

[GrandMasterDash]

The DAO was not really at fault here, the scheme was endorsed by then DCG CEO Ryan Taylor, false information was fed to the DAO, Dash Watch was blocked from auditing ALT36, it was a fraud and eventually when that became clear, it was no longer funded. I think the MNOs have learned a lesson from that and in the future will start asking questions sooner, we kind of see that with the FTL proposal currently failing to pass for what I assume is a failure to directly disclose to the network a change in their broadcasting schedule. In the yesteryears, that proposal would have had no trouble passing.

I suppose there are two alternatives here:

1. The voting masternodes of today are largely the same as those from way back, thus able to learn from their mistakes. In which case I suggest the DAO is failing to attract a new generation with fresh eyes, or

2. The voting masternodes of today are largely new, in which case they may not be wise enough to be more cautious the next time.

Dash Watch also died, so I should add it to the list of failed projects.

In either case, the DAO functions from a minority pool of voters who's output is mediocre at best. This failing is reflected in the current price and a very poor track record.

 

[xkcd]

I suppose there are two alternatives here:

1. The voting masternodes of today are largely the same as those from way back, thus able to learn from their mistakes. In which case I suggest the DAO is failing to attract a new generation with fresh eyes, or

2. The voting masternodes of today are largely new, in which case they may not be wise enough to be more cautious the next time.

Dash Watch also died, so I should add it to the list of failed projects.

In either case, the DAO functions from a minority pool of voters who's output is mediocre at best. This failing is reflected in the current price and a very poor track record.

These issues are almost unavoidable if we are too be fully democratic, remember decentralisation isn't favoured because it is efficient or always gets it right, it is favoured because it is censorship resistant and democratic giving everyone a chance to play, all you need is to pony up some money. If you want better outcomes, they will all lean into centralisation, eg like create a DIF and then appoint professional fund managers, create a Dash Watch and then appoint a select few who will interrogate the POs, create a DCG and appoint a CEO, create a dash Town Hall and appoint a handful of trusted voters. All these structures would provide better outcomes for the network at the cost of you having less of a say in things and turning the MNOs more into board members where the best they can do is defund groups that are doing poorly. At the moment, the MNOs are at one step lower and dealing individuals directly.

 

[vazaki3]

These issues are almost unavoidable if we are too be fully democratic, remember decentralisation isn't favoured because it is efficient or always gets it right, it is favoured because it is censorship resistant and democratic giving everyone a chance to play, all you need is to pony up some money. If you want better outcomes, they will all lean into centralisation,

There are inherent flaws in your way of thinking. I explain below:

eg like create a DIF and then appoint professional fund managers,

flaw: Who decides who is the professional fund manager? Is he truly succesfull or a scammer/loser? The chances to be a scammer/loser are much more!

create a Dash Watch and then appoint a select few who will interrogate the POs,

flaw: Who decides about the few who will succesfully interrogate the POs? Are they truly succesfull or scammers/losers? The chances to be scammers/losers are much more!

create a DCG and appoint a CEO,

flaw: Who decides about the CEO or the DCG? Are they truly succesfull or scammers/losers? The chances to be scammers/losers are much more! Remember @babygiraffe? Remember @AndyDark? Come here in this very comment in a few years from now, and I will ask you again. Remember @QuantumExplorer ? Remember @Pasta ?

create a dash Town Hall and appoint a handful of trusted voters.

flaw: Who decides about the trusted voters? Are they truly trusted? The chances to be traitors/stupid are much more! Remember the masternodes, the supposed trusted/clever voters?

All these structures would provide better outcomes for the network at the cost of you having less of a say in things.

NO..ALL these centralized structures you propose have ALREADY BEEN TRIED here in Dash (CEO, DCG,DIF,DashWatch,Incubator,Masternode voting etc) and they are THE REASON OF THE FAILURE.

There are alternative roads that HAVE NEVER BEEN TRIED. Voting the numbers, the proof of personhood and the Dash meetings in regular intervals where new coins are mined (or alternatively meetings funded by the budget system that offer a Basic Income), the Knowledge Tree where all the votes are recorded, e.t.c. All these methods will perform by far better than the so called "trusted/expert/centralized" schemes you propose. And because they will perform by far better, the agents who are hiding among the masternodes and they centraly control the Dash community fiercly refuse to give these methods a chance, because the agents's centralized worldview and the faith of the ordinary people to centralization will be irreversibly exposed .

 

[GrandMasterDash]

These issues are almost unavoidable if we are too be fully democratic, remember decentralisation isn't favoured because it is efficient or always gets it right, it is favoured because it is censorship resistant and democratic giving everyone a chance to play, all you need is to pony up some money. If you want better outcomes, they will all lean into centralisation, eg like create a DIF and then appoint professional fund managers, create a Dash Watch and then appoint a select few who will interrogate the POs, create a DCG and appoint a CEO, create a dash Town Hall and appoint a handful of trusted voters. All these structures would provide better outcomes for the network at the cost of you having less of a say in things and turning the MNOs more into board members where the best they can do is defund groups that are doing poorly. At the moment, the MNOs are at one step lower and dealing individuals directly.

I'm not convinced, I think the answer is quite straight forward.

The DAO stops all proposal funding. Instead, someone registers a dash name that points to versioned content on Dash Platform. This content asks for X units of dash to keep the content as it, or else it is rolled back to the previous version. MNOs are basically voting for completed work, whether that is websites, databases, dapps, payrolls and so on.

 

[Masternode_Buzz]

I'm not convinced, I think the answer is quite straight forward.

The DAO stops all proposal funding. Instead, someone registers a dash name that points to versioned content on Dash Platform. This content asks for X units of dash to keep the content as it, or else it is rolled back to the previous version. MNOs are basically voting for completed work, whether that is websites, databases, dapps, payrolls and so on.

This is called retroactive funding and I think is totally worth a try. Before the DAO releases money, there should be at least an MVP or a working proof of concept.