Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

David said:
Y'all, we just saw something completely humiliating yesterday. Bitcoin was created in protest of the financial bailouts of 2008, but yesterday the bitcoin development team had to themselves be bailed out by a private university. Let's try to avoid this happening to Dash.

Somebody pages ago mentioned that a currency shouldn't require continual development. This may be true for a conventional printed (fiat) currency, but is never true for software. The Linux Foundation still pays Linus Torvalds a salary to work on Linux. Development is never finished when it comes to software. There are always bugs, always new attack vectors, always new enhancements, always new responses to technology. Continual development is vital. Let's pay for it ourselves, without relying on the same dozen DASH holders every time, and without relying on universities, corporations, or governments to bail us out.

I have no problem with the 15% being "capped" at a certain amount until significantly depleted by approved projects, at which point the 15% deduction will kick back in automatically. But if the network does turn off the 15% periodically, the extra 15% must go to the miners. It must not go to MN owners, or else they will be incentivized never to deplete the reserved funds, and thus to vote no on every proposal.
Click to expand...
Hell, even fiat currency requires continual development. Have you seen the new hundred dollar bills? Lots of security enhancements needed due to counterfeiting.

I don't agree that the unused 15% should automatically go to miners. We should give miners enough to provide the level of security the network needs... not more. I would rather see the block reward size drop by 15% so that holders of the coin aren't "taxed through dilution" more than they need to be. Why incentivize more mining at great expense beyond the level needed while diluting all holders of DASH? A lower block reward would in turn provide less supply of the coin to the markets, which would support the price (or at least dilute it less).
 
Minotaur said:
There is no enforced taxation, you are making a fundamental oversight. All of the rewards belong first and foremost to the network itself. The network then has a series of needs, so to ensure its long term survival it promises to reward those that can provide the services that it needs, it is part of the design. There are three on-going needs: development/promotion, mining and masternode operation. Under the proposed new model, the masternodes get 45% of the block reward for their services, the miners 40% and it keeps 15% for its ongoing development and promotion need. Since the network is not yet a sentient being, it then places the responsibility of executing those funds in those that signed a bond of trust with the network through a collateral. In that sense the masternode operators act as stewards and release the funds to the development team in a controlled and decentralized way, this model is way superior than a foundation, as the execution of the initiatives and the funding are separated and there is a check and balance, as the funds can be retired from a misbehaving project.
Click to expand...

By pushing future funds out of miners, the network hash rate will be reduced causing a less secure coin. As the % allocated to masternodes drop, the less masternodes will be created, reducing the transaction speed and reducing the supply held in masternodes pushing down DASH value. It isn't like there is no consequence for allocating these block rewards to development. I am in favor of development, but not an indefinite fixed %.

I think we all see the benefit of voting via masternodes. The problem is that any funds that are in escrow without a reason will not be spent efficiently. And for long term stability of a coin do we really want 15% to go to unknown future causes forever? In 5 years when that 15% is an enormous amount and there are no new features/bug fixes are needed, what then? Maybe private investment will be coming in and no DASH specific development will be needed. I certainly don't want to pay for an accountants salary to manage writing checks and expenses for projects. I also don't believe that if an amount is set at 15% now it will ever be reduced.

I propose the best approach is the allocate a certain amount for a specific time. That way each project will need to stand on it's own. Projects will get funded from block rewards directly(some split from miners or MNs). Maybe each project would specify if it is funded from miner blocks or masternode blocks. Personally, I would give up a large percentage of block rewards from my masternodes for all these features, as it will grow DASH and increase my masternode value. The funding limit would be capped at 15%, but that wouldn't mean each project would have to use the full amount. Just to list a couple to give some ideas:
  • Long term planning and core development 1% for 2 years, and autorenews with voting, default vote of yes.
  • Mobile wallets 10% for 1 month, default vote of no
  • Blinding 5% for 1 month, default vote of no
  • 2FAE 5% for 1 month, default vote of no
  • Video 1% of 6 months, default vote of no
  • Secure messaging 1% for 2 months, default vote of no
This way we have multiple projects starting and stopping as needed with the most desired first. Some projects would go forward without a vote needed, but could be vetoed by no votes. Most projects would require a yes vote from x % of masternodes to go forward.
 
babygiraffe said:
Hell, even fiat currency requires continual development. Have you seen the new hundred dollar bills? Lots of security enhancements needed due to counterfeiting.

I don't agree that the unused 15% should automatically go to miners. We should give miners enough to provide the level of security the network needs... not more. I would rather see the block reward size drop by 15% so that holders of the coin aren't "taxed through dilution" more than they need to be. Why incentivize more mining at great expense beyond the level needed while diluting all holders of DASH? A lower block reward would in turn provide less supply of the coin to the markets, which would support the price (or at least dilute it less).
Click to expand...
I would not touch supply.
 
fernando said:
I would not touch supply.
Click to expand...
Why would you not touch supply? Would love to debate based on your reasoning rather than your position.

The more I think about it, supply should attempt to match the needs of the network. You need enough to provide a sufficient hash rate (we've already incorporated variable increased supply when there isn't enough network hash rate, so we are ALREADY doing this with miners). You need enough to support a healthy MN network (this is illogically linked to hashrate rather than the number of masternodes we are targeting). And you need enough for development.

We already have variable rewards based on our targeted hash rate. Why not introduce into the protocol a total supply and split for all three numbers independently targeting our desired network hash rate, MN count, and dev / marketing support level? Anything beyond what is needed is waste.

The network could then vote on things like increasing or decreasing the targeted hash rate, the targeted number of MNs (if say transaction volumes increase), or higher or lower dev / marketing budgets.
 
I agree with those who say that we can't have a system like this running indefinitely. At the present, there are literally thousands of potential projects we could need funding for, and would keep the need for funds for years.

However, there will come a time that either through appreciation of Dash value, or lack of quality project options, that we will need to reevaluate the program.

Solution: Don't make the program open-ended. Treat it like a contract, in one or two year blocks. Around the time of expiry, re-evaluate percentage/details, vote and continue. It is understood that 15% shall be the max required. Decide based on pending projects how much will be needed for the coming year, and set that percentage based on the exchange rate at the time.

Keep re-evaluating that way.

Our needs will change, this fund must be flexible.
 
babygiraffe said:
Why would you not touch supply? Would love to debate based on your reasoning rather than your position.
Click to expand...
The most fundamental property of a coin is how many will be put into circulation. If you change this after a coin is released it causes uncertainty about future coins in circulation and loss of value. What you are proposing is interesting, but would need to be started with a new coin.
 
TaoOfSatoshi said:
I agree with those who say that we can't have a system like this running indefinitely. At the present, there are literally thousands of potential projects we could need funding for, and would keep the need for funds for years.

However, there will come a time that either through appreciation of Dash value, or lack of quality project options, that we will need to reevaluate the program.

Solution: Don't make the program open-ended. Treat it like a contract, in one or two year blocks. Around the time of expiry, re-evaluate percentage/details, vote and continue. It is understood that 15% shall be the max required. Decide based on pending projects how much will be needed for the coming year, and set that percentage based on the exchange rate at the time.

Keep re-evaluating that way.

Our needs will change, this fund must be flexible.
Click to expand...

If the time ever comes where money is no longer needed for development, the Dash code can be updated to remove the 15% and the community can choose to accept/reject that update.
 
David said:
If the time ever comes where money is no longer needed for development, the Dash code can be updated to remove the 15% and the community can choose to accept/reject that update.
Click to expand...
While I submit that the time we will not need any money for development will more than likely never come, this is the idea of re-evaluating after contract expiry. Needs change, and available money should be flexible to meet those needs, and no more.
 
Solarminer said:
The most fundamental property of a coin is how many will be put into circulation. If you change this after a coin is released it causes uncertainty about future coins in circulation and loss of value. What you are proposing is interesting, but would need to be started with a new coin.
Click to expand...
I disagree for several reasons. What has gotten us where we are is willingness to take risks and incorporate good ideas. When this coin started, there were no masternodes. We have changed the split of that reward to miner (which decreases the incentive to mine and results in a higher reward needed to incentivize miners, thus changing the supply)... that took place after launch and increases overall supply.

Secondly, I don't think the most fundamental property of a coin is how many will be created. If that were true, this coin would be a failure because there literally is no cap on our supply... it is totally dictated by the hash rate, so if the value of the coin drops, and hash rate drops, we will start spilling out coin to attract miners again. This community is very much driven by innovation, not coin supply. Sure if you flood with new coin nobody anticipated, it would dilute the value and create uncertainty, but...

...we are talking about REMOVING supply, not adding to it. Any reduction is supply has a POSITIVE impact on value, not negative. A reduction in supply vs. what was promised is hardly something that would upset anyone.
 
TaoOfSatoshi said:
I agree with those who say that we can't have a system like this running indefinitely. At the present, there are literally thousands of potential projects we could need funding for, and would keep the need for funds for years.

However, there will come a time that either through appreciation of Dash value, or lack of quality project options, that we will need to reevaluate the program.

Solution: Don't make the program open-ended. Treat it like a contract, in one or two year blocks. Around the time of expiry, re-evaluate percentage/details, vote and continue. It is understood that 15% shall be the max required. Decide based on pending projects how much will be needed for the coming year, and set that percentage based on the exchange rate at the time.

Keep re-evaluating that way.

Our needs will change, this fund must be flexible.
Click to expand...

That is a great suggestion Tao, I like it It can be revised every 24 months. Dash should be able to reach milestones in that period of time. Evaluate the success of the program, vote for adjustments, and continue. Beautiful.
 
Solarminer said:
The most fundamental property of a coin is how many will be put into circulation. If you change this after a coin is released it causes uncertainty about future coins in circulation and loss of value. What you are proposing is interesting, but would need to be started with a new coin.
Click to expand...

I agree with Solarminer and is not the point here, since emission and inflation remain the same. We are just discussing how to distribute rewards. Another great advantage of reinvesting in the ecosystem is it can greatly help with adoption and to build the economy. This is going to be really exciting and give Dash a fair chance of success and avoiding the issues we already see in older coins like BTC and LTC.

Also, block rewards adjust from hashrate so the coin would always find its balance.
 
babygiraffe said:
...we are talking about REMOVING supply, not adding to it. Any reduction is supply has a POSITIVE impact on value, not negative. A reduction in supply vs. what was promised is hardly something that would upset anyone.
Click to expand...
If you can remove from the supply, you can also add to the supply. It still causes the same problem. The same issue comes up with the question of rolling back a block to stop coins from getting stolen. You do it once and save the coins, but now the precedent is there to do it again and the coin is worthless.
 
Solarminer said:
If you can remove from the supply, you can also add to the supply. It still causes the same problem. The same issue comes up with the question of rolling back a block to stop coins from getting stolen. You do it once and save the coins, but now the precedent is there to do it again and the coin is worthless.
Click to expand...

No one is removing or adding to the supply either, the emission and inflation remain the same. The coins go to the market, but in a different way that develops the ecosystem. Services are contracted, people provide services, is a real economy. It is exactly the same thing we did for the introduction of masternodes and that is why this coin has value. Innovation and doing things differently.

Everyone is forgetting about the end users, our goal is to create decentralized financial services for people, that are user friendly and safe and that they actually use not as an investment but as a service. To produce that portfolio of added value benefits and educate and attract the public we need funding.

It is not about setting percentages and constantly add new investors to absorb the emission, that would just be a bubble and it would eventually fail. Our top priority should be the end user and producing services that people actually use. Am I missing something?
 
I'm a lucky one in that I have MN ownership. I wonder though in the interest of inclusion should we provide the option for parties to contribute and vote from their wallet. If a holder of dash feels really strongly on a project they could have the option to donate and then vote accordingly. Not sure how this could be built (or what the takeup would be) but it would a potential voice for everyone not just the MN holders.

Just thinking out loud !!
 
Funxy said:
I'm a lucky one in that I have MN ownership. I wonder though in the interest of inclusion should we provide the option for parties to contribute and vote from their wallet. If a holder of dash feels really strongly on a project they could have the option to donate and then vote accordingly. Not sure how this could be built (or what the takeup would be) but it would a potential voice for everyone not just the MN holders.

Just thinking out loud !!
Click to expand...

You can accomplish this through Shared Masternodes :smile:, I think in the future we should finally introduce some sort of trust-less masternode pooling it would really give people more options of participation.
 
Minotaur said:
You can accomplish this through Shared Masternodes :smile:, I think in the future we should finally introduce some sort of trust-less masternode pooling it would really give people more options of participation.
Click to expand...
If some positive feedback is enough for you you can try one of these shared MN services:
https://dashtalk.org/forums/marketplace.9/
 
Minotaur said:
No one is removing or adding to the supply either, the emission and inflation remain the same. The coins go to the market, but in a different way that develops the ecosystem. Services are contracted, people provide services, is a real economy. It is exactly the same thing we did for the introduction of masternodes and that is why this coin has value. Innovation and doing things differently.

Everyone is forgetting about the end users, our goal is to create decentralized financial services for people, that are user friendly and safe and that they actually use not as an investment but as a service. To produce that portfolio of added value benefits and educate and attract the public we need funding.

It is not about setting percentages and constantly add new investors to absorb the emission, that would just be a bubble and it would eventually fail. Our top priority should be the end user and producing services that people actually use. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Shoot, I had you agreeing with me on this already.:smile: I am with you on not changing the supply. Changing block reward % allocation (temporarily per project) is the best way to do this.
 
Where's strix? He always has intelligent comments for times like this....

Minotaur said:
That is a great suggestion Tao, I like it It can be revised every 24 months. Dash should be able to reach milestones in that period of time. Evaluate the success of the program, vote for adjustments, and continue. Beautiful.
Click to expand...
It makes sense. Nothing is forever, and this is a solution that accommodates change.
Minotaur said:
No one is removing or adding to the supply either, the emission and inflation remain the same. The coins go to the market, but in a different way that develops the ecosystem. Services are contracted, people provide services, is a real economy. It is exactly the same thing we did for the introduction of masternodes and that is why this coin has value. Innovation and doing things differently.

Everyone is forgetting about the end users, our goal is to create decentralized financial services for people, that are user friendly and safe and that they actually use not as an investment but as a service. To produce that portfolio of added value benefits and educate and attract the public we need funding.

It is not about setting percentages and constantly add new investors to absorb the emission, that would just be a bubble and it would eventually fail. Our top priority should be the end user and producing services that people actually use. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Totally agree with everything said here. What's best for the end users is best for the investors, generally. A better product creates more demand creates higher prices which rewards investors, and it's a continuous cycle. This is just a fantastic idea.

https://twitter.com/TaoOfSatoshi/status/591370363948380161?s=09
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top