AnarchicCluster
Well-known member
This here borderlines with a genious. The only downside I see is being hugely exposed to financial regulation.
Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
And what about the end result being a completely centralized corporation? Yeah, would be awesome.
camosoul
Well-known member
"wisdom of the crowd"
Woah, hold on there Icarus...
I've never observed any group of 5 people or more do anything even marginally intelligent... Ever. Not even once.
This proposal lacks one thing... Opt Out. What if an MN operator doesn't care? The previously published schedule may have been the basis for running the node(s). Now that portion is going to a dev pool, like it or not?
There seems to be no way to vote no on anything, if this is the case... The money is going to be sent to a project no matter what, so why bother voting at all? False choice. If there is no option to keep that percentage and abstain from the vote, it may as well be a tax... You either vote yes and get what you want, or you vote no and, you still lose the money and the yes votes, even if there's only one of them, still get what they want... No votes don't actually count because the funding is still taken.
Shit, that's worse than government currencies... The money is taken either way, so the vote is placebo. All projects will be performed no matter what since there is no real impact of voting no.
You have to be able to take the money away (keep it to yourself), or it's a sham. Without the option to defund, I may as well send my privkeys to the IRS... This doesn't work at all like it was described...
Woah, hold on there Icarus...
I've never observed any group of 5 people or more do anything even marginally intelligent... Ever. Not even once.
This proposal lacks one thing... Opt Out. What if an MN operator doesn't care? The previously published schedule may have been the basis for running the node(s). Now that portion is going to a dev pool, like it or not?
There seems to be no way to vote no on anything, if this is the case... The money is going to be sent to a project no matter what, so why bother voting at all? False choice. If there is no option to keep that percentage and abstain from the vote, it may as well be a tax... You either vote yes and get what you want, or you vote no and, you still lose the money and the yes votes, even if there's only one of them, still get what they want... No votes don't actually count because the funding is still taken.
Shit, that's worse than government currencies... The money is taken either way, so the vote is placebo. All projects will be performed no matter what since there is no real impact of voting no.
You have to be able to take the money away (keep it to yourself), or it's a sham. Without the option to defund, I may as well send my privkeys to the IRS... This doesn't work at all like it was described...
Not true at all, if you vote no to a project it will not get done. If an initiative that is initially funded is not going as expected then funding is retired and it stops. The basic principle is the masternodes as a group decide where to invest the money to develop the ecosystem as a group and it does not go to an individual like with foundations. Yes you do have to reinvest into the ecosystem, but that creates value that is good for everyone. How is it OK for miners to share with Masternodes and not OK for everyone to support the network? What is the alternative? To become a Litecoin or a Dogecoin with no value created and doomed to fail, the price comes from the innovation, added value features and adoption and that requires funding.
alex-ru
Well-known member
It would be so if we have only miners and ordinary users who may sell coins in a second.
But with Masternode operators situation is absolutely different! Because they care not about these 15% (You didn't ever own it - it is not a "tax"! You just can manage it - it is like having a "voting share"!), but they care about 100% they own long-term. Everybody cares about future of their money.
I think best voting system would be:
1. Nobody else (even majority) can't decide where "your" 15% will be spent. Only you can decide - exactly 100% your decision (it will be "Proof of Honesty" - nobody will feel as "unhappy voter").
2. But you can't spend it on anything you want (to eliminates affiliated project as a way of cashing in your amount).
3. You can only 2 options:
3a. Spend it only for some TOP projects, accepted by majority;
3b. Hold funds for future projects (Better projects accepted by majority in future).
3b. Hold funds for future projects (Better projects accepted by majority in future).
Last edited by a moderator:
camosoul
Well-known member
My point is that the money is gone either way... It's like a tax. The money is taken no matter what. What if every proposal is voted down? Money still in "escrow?" It's just gone? There is no real "no" vote here... What if there's nothing to spend it on? What if the decimal point moves 4 places to the right an 1% is more than needed?? This is worse than dealing with a government... If there's nothing to spend it on, why doesn't it come back to those from whom it was taken?
100% of the block reward goes to people who made a contribution to the function of the coin. MNs and Miners. I agree that Devs are left out of that, and they deserve something. But we're basically going to mine 40% into their "escrow" no matter if there's a job for them to do or not? No matter the exchange rate? When I decide not to fund a kickstarter project, guess what; kickstarter doesn't just take my money anyway... That's what government does. That's a tax forced upon you whether you like it or not. The money is taken by force and even if there's no need, they make some shit up to waste it on... Why bother voting no "on" a proposal if the funds are gone anyway? May as well vote yes cuz you're paying either way...
The vote doesn't actually do anything... I agree a plan SIMILAR to this is a good idea, but compulsory extortion no matter how you vote proves this is a false choice... Voting "no" doesn't actually defund anything, so why bother to vote "no?" This goes too far and ends up negating itself. So maybe no projects get funded. Nothing to pay a dev to do... But the money is still sitting taken and sitting in a supposed "escrow" waiting for some pork project? What if there's nothing left to do? This is a problem we already see in government. There's this budget that will exist no matter what, so better come up with some bullshit way to waste it and justify their existence. The option to do nothing needs to be on the table. The only realistic way to achieve that is to allow a no vote to result in retention of the funds by the node. Maybe there are interesting projects on the table, but none of more value than simply keeping the money? Not everyone sees it the same way.
A forced contribution to a giant collective pork barrel no matter how you vote, negates the concept of voting no. Why does the pork barrel keep growing with every block when there's nothing to spend it on? We need a "do nothing, keep the money" contingency, not a dev who steps in to re-write it when that bridge comes to pass.
I like most of this idea, but it's a bridge too far as tabled.
This also ignores the fact that time passes... Funds could build up. What if 49% vote no on a proposal, the 51% aren't enough to fund it, but guess what, there will be another block, and that 51% who want it just keeps building up until they can afford it.
If there's nothing to spend it on, why is it being taken anyway? If the exchange rate varies wildly, does not the percentage need to change, or does the "escrow" become a giant pork barrel? This smells really bad. Money not needed should go back where it came from or you risk all the same problems that government already shows us will happen...
Devs and Foundation-type activities need to be funded, no doubt. I'm not arguing against that. I want it! But behaving exactly as failed governance we already have... I think the up sides of this were considered, without thinking about the down sides. It's not a real "no" vote if you still have to pay for it either way. If I don't want a Beanie Baby, guess what? I don't buy it, and I KEEP MY MONEY. The concept of declining a thing, and also not paying for that thing, are inseparable. If you're going to be forced to pay for a thing no matter what, then, uh, it's a false choice. You're paying for the thing no matter what, so where's the vote, really? What if there's no need to pay for anything because there's nothing to do? What if the exchange rate goes to the moon and there's way more money than needed? Just invent bullshit projects to waste it on? A bunch of make-work jobs to pork up do-nothing devs and do-nothing projects? Why is the money still disappearing anyway? Who controls the giant pork barrel it is needlessly being pumped into? If you take a bunch of money and have no use for it, give it back. Or better, don't take it in the first place.
100% of the block rewards shold go to people who are DOING something to support the network. Devs are not a constant, but they do deserve something when they do something. Taking a percentage for them, whether they do anything or not, is horrendous. Why not just mine right into a random strangers' wallet for no reason?
Last edited by a moderator:
The model of the coin would just change, it is not taking away from masternode operators, future rewards beyond 45% would go to support the ecosystem, masternodes are right now making 42.5% of the reward. Operators as a group would be tasked to execute the development funding in a decentralized and active way.
Miners were making 100% of the reward before masternodes were introduced. They don't get an option to decide they keep it, in fact when enforcement is off, everyone goes crazy. What is the difference? If it is as you say, then enforcement should be off period and miners get to decide if they share with masternodes. It just does not work that way, in this currency the rewards are divided to ensure the long term survival of the coin, and there are three pillars right now that have been identified as important: miners, development/promotion and masternodes. That balance would result in the most value produced for the most important group in the ecosytem: the end users. Value needs to be produced it is not just about sharing percentages, people need to benefit and find value from using our ecosystem as a currency not as an investment, so that the investment can also be a successful one, is not the other way around.
The model would change so no one would be taking anything "away" from masternodes just as nothing was taken "away" from miners. As a masternode operator you would need to decide if 45% direct reward, plus voting right on reinvesting 15% into your own project is a good proposition or not. Would it bring you equity and value? Would it serve well your end user? Just like miners everyone gets to decide whether that is a good business proposition or not. I think this model would serve me better than the previous one. About the mechanics of execution, we need together to find the best methodology, we could keep a reserve, and make adjustments. But the budget right now would be modest and not even at the level of a small business. If later on the coin explodes in value, then it means it is working and everyone in the ecosystem is being rewarded: users and investors.
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing was not clear to me. Let's say there are 5 projects that can be funded. Funding is done by masternodes voting every cycle.
I am interested in funding project A, but only 20 more masternodes are interested in funding project A. The vast majority is interested in funding project B, which needs a HUGE budget, and cannot be funded in one cycle. How is this handled?
To rephrase it: Can each masternode vote for a specific project with its share of the earnings, or would it be more like an election where the project with most votes win?
The difference might seem subtle at first, but in reality it could have an enormous effect on the end result of votings.
I am interested in funding project A, but only 20 more masternodes are interested in funding project A. The vast majority is interested in funding project B, which needs a HUGE budget, and cannot be funded in one cycle. How is this handled?
To rephrase it: Can each masternode vote for a specific project with its share of the earnings, or would it be more like an election where the project with most votes win?
The difference might seem subtle at first, but in reality it could have an enormous effect on the end result of votings.
camosoul
Well-known member
You're missing my point.
I'm not complaining about money hose shrinkage.
100% belongs to contributors. Devs and Foundation work are not constants. They deserve a percent when they do something. When they don't why do they still get the same percentage? The option to divide the excrow up and send it back to the nodes/miners when THEY DECIDE THAT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO DO WITH IT, needs to be on the table or we end up with a giant pork barrel that belongs to no one? Really? There's no such thing as "extra" money, somebody will have to make themselves look busy to waste it...
As tabled, this creates an open-ended money pit. Am I supposed to believe no one is skimming off of this? Why would you want to create a giant pork barrel if you didn't intend to grab it for yourself?
Lets put it another way...
When I unplug my miner, I don't keep on getting a piece of the pie. It goes back to the other miners.
If I take down my masternode, I don't keep getting MN payments.
If a Dev stops deving, or the MNs vote for no projects, why do they keep getting a piece of the pie?
It needs to go back where it came from, just like when I stop mining or take down my MN.
You can't leave it open ended, or it begs the question; who's getting all that pork?
If MNs vote to not do anthing, the funds need to be divied up and returned proportionately, or else we're just making a jackpot for pork project do-nothing devs... We need the option to send it back where it came from when there's nothing of value to do or else it gets abused, wasted, stolen, etc...
Last edited by a moderator:
crowning
Well-known member
All projects with more than 50% yays are ordered by their absolute numbers of yays and then funded from top to down until there's no budget left any more.
If, at one time, the percentage of a project drops below 50% (you can change your vote whenever you want) it'll not be funded any more.
This doesn't necessarily mean the people involved would stop working on it (personally I wouldn't stop, but I'm not here for the money anyway), they just won't get DASH for it any more.
Last edited by a moderator:
" NOTHING ELSE TO DO WITH IT,"
come on man. you have any idea how much there is to do here !
this is a long term plan, not for 1 wallet, or 1 iPhone app ... long term, coders are freaking expensive these days (since crypto) so to compete in this market we have to think of next year not tomorrow !
come on man. you have any idea how much there is to do here !
this is a long term plan, not for 1 wallet, or 1 iPhone app ... long term, coders are freaking expensive these days (since crypto) so to compete in this market we have to think of next year not tomorrow !
Who is stopping MN owners voting No all the time so that the money comes back to them even if there are good projects to be funded?
camosoul
Well-known member
Nothing. That's the point. If the MN operators can't place that option, then it's all funded all the time... Pork do-nothing projects can't be stopped. A piece of the pie is being pork barreled with no contribution... I don't keep getting MN payments when I take down my MN. Miners don't get paid when they turn off their miners. If there's nothing useful for a Dev to do, why do they still get paid? If "The Foundation" Is blowing funds on First Class tickets to Thailand to bone 14 year old hookers, how do we stop it? There has to be a "nothing useful, put the money back where it came from" option to make this a closed-ended system or else it'll be abused like any other giant pile of useless money...
This is supposed to be Proof of Service, not Dev welfare pork bullshit... We already have that, it's called government.
Some MN operators might vote no blindly all the time. But most are smart enough to realize that some projects are worth it. I thought that "Wisdom of the hoarde" was cited, yet it is immediately negated... Hmm...
This is very much like a shareholders' meting where nobody is allowed to say no...
I get the feeling nobody here has ever handled real money in real life... If there's a giant pile of cash, someone will make up bullshit jobs to spend it into their own pocket...
Last edited by a moderator:
alex-ru
Well-known member
Right. Anyway it's hard to make ideal system from the first try. We can adjust parameters and change scheme several times in future - to make it most effective. Just don't change % often - it will force investors to be nervous...
You, me, or all of us stop mining, close our MNs, sell our DASH and let them enjoy Thailand.
What is overlooked in this conversation thus far is this: when I invest in a stock of a company or in a share of a start-up, or even in the government bonds I GIVE them the money, hand it to them to USE as they wish (development, whore-mongering...) IMMEDIATELY and I do that in exchange for the hope of the FUTURE profit.
Here, our fiat money gets converted into DASH, we place it into a Masternode and we KEEP IT. Developers work BUT, unlike a corporation or a start-up, they CAN NOT touch our money / Dash! Even more so, the money / DASH I am having in my Masternode(s) is earning me PROFIT as I expect them to work for me and the fucking future of humanity for FREE!
To bicker should we "give" them a part of the profit or not is insane.
We should all be happy to participate, with such a small contribution (10% - 15% of the MN profit) and help them create a better future or leave it. And we have a voice (vote) in the future developments. And we can offer our own projects and ask for funds... I mean, come on...
Last edited by a moderator:
camosoul
Well-known member
At this moment, it's a fatal flaw. This open and needs to be closed. I like most of the idea. But leaving it an open-ended pork barrel waiting to be abused is fatal.
Not true at all, a proposal needs 51% + approval to get done, if it is bullshit it would not get done. Something else that does get approval and therefore is not bullshit would get done.
You keep saying the funds "returning" when these would belong to the network not the masternode operators. This option you are describing is exactly like having enforcement off. "Some miners might keep the coins all the time but others would understand the importance of sharing" how does that work out?
Or preferably think a bit about the possible alternatives, and implement a good system in the first place. Speaking for myself I really hope a modified version of the idea will get implemented. While I agree with most of it, there are some details that could be tweaked, resulting in a system that will lead to less issues.
Rare occasion, but I agree with camosoul - I like most of the idea as well, but it definitely needs to be altered a bit BEFORE it gets implemented, as changing things after implementation is always more difficult.
camosoul
Well-known member
As it stands, there is no real "no" vote. There is only "yes" and "abstain." There is no "no."
99% of it is a damn brilliant idea. But it fails a foundational premise of crypto; closed-loop. You can't do a money-for-nothing scheme. Definitely not in the coin that invented the notion of Proof of Service...
There has to be an option to "put the money back, there's nothing worth spending it on." It's not about MN or mining profits... Get off that. It's about an open-ended pork barrel.
99% of it is a damn brilliant idea. But it fails a foundational premise of crypto; closed-loop. You can't do a money-for-nothing scheme. Definitely not in the coin that invented the notion of Proof of Service...
There has to be an option to "put the money back, there's nothing worth spending it on." It's not about MN or mining profits... Get off that. It's about an open-ended pork barrel.