Proposal: Adaptive Proposal Fees
- Thread starter GrandMasterDash
- Start date
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Is there some reason this is not generating a lot of discussion?
Come on folks, if we don't pass this, then next month someone is going to submit a proposal "vote Yes to keep the fee at 5 dash", just to prove that it will also fail to be funded and then everyone will look stupid and the discussion will go on even longer.
Saying yes to this idea is how we settle on a scalable, reasonable agreement and move on to bigger and better things.
Come on folks, if we don't pass this, then next month someone is going to submit a proposal "vote Yes to keep the fee at 5 dash", just to prove that it will also fail to be funded and then everyone will look stupid and the discussion will go on even longer.
Saying yes to this idea is how we settle on a scalable, reasonable agreement and move on to bigger and better things.
It's partly my fault for giving a specific implementation (client-side console command) when actually the important bit is to vote and extract the median.
I hope people vote yes for this because they trust core would do a good job of implementing it. Core might, for example, be able to implement this as a rolling vote that persists while the masternode is active. It would be nice if core took a more active role in this discussion.
demo
Well-known member
The important thing is to become independant from the core development team. The governance questions should define the specifications, thus give the posibility to whoever wants to implement the governance decision. In case a governance question passes, then you should expect and welcome developers to come and propose their way to implement this governance decision. And let the best and the cheaper to be voted and get the job.
The work of the core team should be minimized and limited to testing the code of the external developers. The cheaper an external developer is , the harder is for him to bribe the core team and pass his code without the core team to test it. So it is wise to vote the proposals of the cheap developers, because their cheapness is an incentive for the core team to test the code more thoroughly. In case a bug is discovered, the core team testers will get the money that was meant for paying the external developers. In case a buggy code is released into the stable release, then the core team lose their job.
Unleash the free market of coders and let them work for DASH. Stop believing in a core development team having hierarchical structures similar to civil servants. The free market and the free competition makes the code development cheap and allows the Dash code to evolve.
The work of the core team should be minimized and limited to testing the code of the external developers. The cheaper an external developer is , the harder is for him to bribe the core team and pass his code without the core team to test it. So it is wise to vote the proposals of the cheap developers, because their cheapness is an incentive for the core team to test the code more thoroughly. In case a bug is discovered, the core team testers will get the money that was meant for paying the external developers. In case a buggy code is released into the stable release, then the core team lose their job.
Unleash the free market of coders and let them work for DASH. Stop believing in a core development team having hierarchical structures similar to civil servants. The free market and the free competition makes the code development cheap and allows the Dash code to evolve.
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
All votes are already rolling votes anyway -- when there is a multi month proposal you don't have to re-vote after the first time unless you want to change it. It would be the same thing here except instead of an up or down it would just be a number which would then be tallied/calculated at the end of the cycle like all the other votes.
If core team does research and comes up with a new recommended fee amount then they can always publish that information to influence MNs to change. If we start getting spammed too much then the MNs will vote to set the fee higher for the next month, and vice versa. Using a median from masternode votes completely takes away any contention/doubt about the core team imposing an arbitrary number. It will always be the number that best represents the consensus of the stakeholders and it is adaptive. Apparently this would not be a huge deal to implement compared to some of our other things being worked on (especially if it is implemented in the short term as a traditional spork, as you mentioned) so it's not like this would be holding anything up. And it's a great case study for showing the relationship between the MNs and the core team, and what happens when the MNs recommend a course of action. What is not to like about this?
Last edited:
Nothing! The sad thing is, that if we were using the median today and were trying to change it to a fixed amount like 5 Dash, the same people who are voting this down would be arguing to vote the 5 Dash down.
There are some people who need to be told what to do. In other words, it's not the right thing to do unless the Core Team does it and forces it on them... then suddenly it's the right thing to do. sad.
As if 5 Dash is some perfect magic number...
I would just like to remind people, the upgrade from 12.0 to 12.1 gave the governance system a complete overhaul; it was specifically designed to be more flexible and to allow upgrades like this to be much easier to implement.
Don't let this opportunity go to waste. We have this opportunity to show the world we are not stagnant or shy to innovate. We are leaders.
Don't let this opportunity go to waste. We have this opportunity to show the world we are not stagnant or shy to innovate. We are leaders.
demo
Well-known member
Pietro Speroni
Active member
I am flabbergasted that this proposal isn't passing with unanimity. And so far I could not hear a single comment of a person presenting a good case why it should not be applied. Not even your reason, @demo of the fact that this silence minorities. The only way not to silence minorities it to use a consent system (different from a consensus, btw) but this does not scale up to thousands of people participating. This is simply a problem that has not been solved by human civilization.
I first started thinking about using the median for nation wide referendums in 2013. I think this is a great idea as in the eDemocracy often we end up only voting on boolean proposals. So much creativity gets lost. At least when the problem is unidimensional the solution is both what the majority wants, and within a certain range not fully determined by the person proposing. A truly community decision. Failing the idea of a tool for nations I started thinking that we should have started with a DAO. But now after seeing this sorry state of affairs I think Demo is optimist in proposing it for privx. And I start to think that governance must be set up rightly from the beginning, so it might only work on a new coin. Because policymakers generally cannot be trusted in taking decisions on policimaking. That is way too meta, and they always end up taking decisions that favours them. So I am now considering selling my masternode and starting a new coin specifically studied with mathematically fair governance in mind. And the rest will follow from it.
BTW, I am nudfelsyoshy in Dashcentral. This is what happens when you use random username without realising you will need those usernames to discuss stuff.
I first started thinking about using the median for nation wide referendums in 2013. I think this is a great idea as in the eDemocracy often we end up only voting on boolean proposals. So much creativity gets lost. At least when the problem is unidimensional the solution is both what the majority wants, and within a certain range not fully determined by the person proposing. A truly community decision. Failing the idea of a tool for nations I started thinking that we should have started with a DAO. But now after seeing this sorry state of affairs I think Demo is optimist in proposing it for privx. And I start to think that governance must be set up rightly from the beginning, so it might only work on a new coin. Because policymakers generally cannot be trusted in taking decisions on policimaking. That is way too meta, and they always end up taking decisions that favours them. So I am now considering selling my masternode and starting a new coin specifically studied with mathematically fair governance in mind. And the rest will follow from it.
BTW, I am nudfelsyoshy in Dashcentral. This is what happens when you use random username without realising you will need those usernames to discuss stuff.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Was following you all the way until the end when you invoked the nuclear option. There are still 18 days left for voting, give it a chance. If this proposal fails I would consider that to be a mistake but it wouldn't be a complete unraveling of our governance structure....
Pietro Speroni
Active member
I am sorry, working in eDem for several years made me bitter and resentful of process where people are allowed to vote on the scope of their own power. Not one time I have seen it go well. Now I am starting to think that there should be a cast where people either decide how the governance should be, or participate in the governance (either by voting or representing or in whatever way the Cast would decide). The point is, who decided the governance system cannot participate in such governance or they will not take the best decision.
The governance is complex. The median works when you have a unidimensional single peak decision making. When you have several alternatives you can use condorcet... when there is a condorcet winner. When there are only two alternatives straight voting is ok, but beware of situations when the question has several alternatives, but they are posed as a series of boolean questions (how much should the limit be? 5D? 0.1D? 1D? ) But then like before pointed out you don't want to silence minorities. Then you need a consent system where people consent to decisions, unless they have real and good rational reasons why not doing so. This is how sociocracy works. But who decides what is a rational reason? People should only participate when they are rationality based... good luck with that. And while this might work among 5-7 people in face to face it will surely not scale up to the thousands of people online when we don't even know who is voting multiple times because they can afford so. And in all this if you implement the governance system badly (read always, as it always needs improvements) it cannot be upgraded because people will vote to keep the maximum of power and the minimum of work for themselves.
/rant
The governance is complex. The median works when you have a unidimensional single peak decision making. When you have several alternatives you can use condorcet... when there is a condorcet winner. When there are only two alternatives straight voting is ok, but beware of situations when the question has several alternatives, but they are posed as a series of boolean questions (how much should the limit be? 5D? 0.1D? 1D? ) But then like before pointed out you don't want to silence minorities. Then you need a consent system where people consent to decisions, unless they have real and good rational reasons why not doing so. This is how sociocracy works. But who decides what is a rational reason? People should only participate when they are rationality based... good luck with that. And while this might work among 5-7 people in face to face it will surely not scale up to the thousands of people online when we don't even know who is voting multiple times because they can afford so. And in all this if you implement the governance system badly (read always, as it always needs improvements) it cannot be upgraded because people will vote to keep the maximum of power and the minimum of work for themselves.
/rant
demo
Well-known member
I am here to help you with all my efforts, and participate in your new coin.
Consider also tezos as an alternative codebase you may want to use. https://github.com/tezos/tezos
But I warn you. Everyone who tried to vote the numbers, had a very bad chance, faced a huge resistence and encountered unreasonable attacks. And this is not from 2013, it is from the beginning of the times.
Tezos also have similar problems. https://twitter.com/tez0s/status/863030960400379904
Tezos Twitter said:
Tezos Twitter said:
Our enemy is very big, but we will crash him one day. Because our friend is bigger.
Last edited:
demo
Well-known member
Pivx people commented in a good spirit, and this is a good sign.
The bad sign is that although the Dash people are now commenting in a good spirit for the "vote the numbers" idea (it was not always that way, remember what was happening in that issue just one month before the arrival of @Pietro Speroni ) the big Dash MNO holders (the whales) still have a totally different opinion and voting reaction than the majority of the people they govern.
So I am afraid that, although there is positive reaction of comments in PIVX, we will encounter a similar situation there when the proposal starts to get voted by the PIVX MNOs. But we will not find out for sure, until we try a proposal there.
In the meantime we still have 18 days left here in DASH, so lets watch the voting history carefully.
https://dashvotetracker.com/history.php?ProposalID=271
Last edited:
jimbursch
Well-known member
This proposal is poorly constructed and even the OP has admitted that it shouldn't be implemented as submitted:
Pietro Speroni
Active member
@demo the steps are the people with multiple masternodes. But why does the graph not start at 0 votes yes and 0 votes no? Can we get the complete graph?
@jimbursch the idea is presented well enough. It is much more clear than a lot of other ideas presented. Honestly I cannot imagine 160 people voting no because of those trivialities. Especially considering that they are not commenting and that each proposal costs 5 dash. I am starting to believe there is something more disingenuous going on. Like people not wanting Dash to have a real direct governance system.
@demo people vote with numbers in some participatory budgeting platforms.
Maybe tezos is the way to go. You don't pay 5 dash to present a proposal. You pay with your sweat and time to code it (or pay someone to do it).
@jimbursch the idea is presented well enough. It is much more clear than a lot of other ideas presented. Honestly I cannot imagine 160 people voting no because of those trivialities. Especially considering that they are not commenting and that each proposal costs 5 dash. I am starting to believe there is something more disingenuous going on. Like people not wanting Dash to have a real direct governance system.
@demo people vote with numbers in some participatory budgeting platforms.
Maybe tezos is the way to go. You don't pay 5 dash to present a proposal. You pay with your sweat and time to code it (or pay someone to do it).
demo
Well-known member
No we cannot. The "vote the numbers" idea has been attacked (that way or another) since the beggining of the times, and this is what also happened to @GrandMasterDash's proposal. Some people say it was by chance, but it wasnt.
What are those platforms? Can you give me a link?
Is it this what you mean?
https://pbstanford.org/
http://pboakland.org/page/about
https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/
I was not aware of it, although it is an old idea, it started at porto alegre, brazil, 1989.
it seems very promising.
Last edited:
That's not a good reason to reject it because now you clearly understand the intention. It's not me implementing it, nor am I stipulating a rigid implementation, nor am I profiting in any way. And it's certainly not self-interest, for it was, I would just propose a lower fee. All I care is for the better good of dash. It don't matter if I am viewed as abrasive, or if my name is not Evan or Ryan. You are voting the basic idea that MNOs cast a vote for the proposal fee and the median is used.
I understand your sentiment. However selling masternodes might be a bit premature; such decision might mean you are over-invested (just saying).
As for starting a new coin / fork, don't underestimate how difficult that is. You'd either need a ton of money, or good support and dedication from developers. Sure it's easy to copy-and-paste a coin, but the pillars of a good DAO are not just governance and funding. Having said that, it was the immovability of dash that lead to PIVX...
Vedran Yoweri
Active member
That's because you don't understand distributed systems while dreaming of democracy.
This proposal suggests to change the core system and parameters under the disguise of being a discussion about what calculations should be used to determine the 'best' averages.
- it's a proposal to change core system and parameters.
The budget voting system should not be used for this, that's what github is for.
- it's a proposal which introduces an obligation for the MNO to vote every month on something essential to the security of the network.
Network security should be under control of the protocol, this is the essence of what creates trust in distributed systems.
Pietro Speroni
Active member
Hello, I designed as a consultant the participatory budgeting for some of Italian towns (Italian link). But at the time we did not vote with numbers. I was not aware of the theorem of the median and I did not trust the average for the reasons explained above. Instead last year I was invited to a presentation to the House of Commons. A sign I thought that the UK was starting to take eDemocracy seriously. Indeed the presentations were quite interesting and Gunnar Grimsson was presenting the work they did in Iceland. I followed that work from the beginning when they developed the software Better Reykyavik starting from White House 2. But I was not aware of the new developments. Better Neighbourhoods. Which is a participatory budgeting system where each person has to allocate the whole amount they have at disposition among the various projects. This brings home the understanding that you cannot have everything, if you allocate money to fix the street then there is less money for the hospitals... and so on.
See this slide for the voting form: https://docs.google.com/presentatio...sumXgWcgfpxPewrY/edit#slide=id.g12d2c70d0_020
this is my understanding based upon Gunnar presentation. I can ask him if it is correct, as I was not directly involved. Most of the other budgeting systems people just vote which project they want supported and then some mathe-magic redistributes the money making sure that no projects that is supported gets less than the money needed.
It should also be noted in this the voting triangle. Something I was involved in the past where people vote in a triangle to clarify how much they (self declare) understand a proposal, and how much they agree or disagree with it. The more you understand it, the more you can agree or disagree. My approval of the Ripple gateway would have very little weight with that system, while my approval of this proposal we are discussing here would have a massive weight considering how technical I am on it.
You can find the presentation of that voting system here