Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

camosoul said:
I thought of that too, but it's too static. Some projects may take a while to save up money. The vote needs to be a REAL VOTE.

Wisdom of the crowd, except when I don't like it, won't work. You either have real votes or you don't. "If you vote yes, it counts, if you vote no, it doesn't count" isn't a real vote system...
Click to expand...

If there is an option to get more money you will pick that one and not development. It's greed and not wisdom of the crowd. If greed is not left as an option then I am forcing you to investigate the available projects and choose the one that will bring more value to your asset that you already own (don't compare it to the government). You can exit and enter the crypto world anytime.

The funds are going to be held by the percentage of the block reward. Block reward is an incentive for providing service whether that is mining or MN hosting. Now there will be an incentive for developing, but developing is different than mining or MNs. We can't have developers competing every 2.5 minutes offering new code to the network and then let the network decide who is the best and put him on the block reward. We are left with two options:
1. Being able to vote rewards back to the MN/miners (or whatever) since there is no decent project to be funded. Greed is left open here.

2. Being able to vote Y/N/A and even if no project is being developed the money stays and accumulates until a worthy project gets funding. This option leaves the voters with the responsibility and the choice of making a mistake. Yes, some projects can take funding and then lead to no real development being done but I like the idea of being able to change your vote on a project when you feel like it and shut down the funding to that project.

Neither of the two options are perfect but I am leaning towards the second one.

There was a part you mentioned something about inflation. Can you explain that part? How can the holding of development funds bring inflation?
 
camosoul said:
I thought of that too, but it's too static. Some projects may take a while to save up money. The vote needs to be a REAL VOTE.

Wisdom of the crowd, except when I don't like it, won't work. You either have real votes or you don't. "If you vote yes, it counts, if you vote no, it doesn't count" isn't a real vote system...
Click to expand...

Saving for a project can be a proposal, so those would not be unused funds if a saving proposal for project x is approved.

I don't think that your worries about a huge pile of dash and a few people trying to profit from that with useless projects will materialize, but I understand that you and a few others worry about that. On the other hand, if there is an option to not fund, we are back to the donations model that doesn't work.

You mention miners as an example. If you pull out your miner, your reward doesn't go to masternodes, it goes to other miners that will earn more. If profitability is high enough, new miners will come and competition will make it lower again. Same with developers, but to avoid their profitability going through the roof if there are few projects, the excess of funds is locked in an account to be used at another time. The market for contributors is not as efficient as the miners one, so it needs that adjustment.

In any case, I insist, there is so much to be done that I'm not worried at all. I'm sure that funds will be used. It is up to us to choose wisely among the proposals, but I'm sure there will be plenty of them. If a dev doesn't work he won't get paid, it will be others with active proposals who will be paid. Or nobody until someone with an useful proposals arrives.

Maybe with that delay that sdef2 suggests we could break the incentive to vote no out of self-interest. If the time needed to get back the funds is long enough, the lure of the reward is not that big for the voter. If your fears come true and we get a perfect coin that needs no further work or maintenance, those coins would ultimately go back to the masternodes. The mechanism to give those coins back should be well thought to avoid time arbitrage in setting up masternodes. This probably needs some thinking, but it is good to see so many of us discussing (and that was a great first post sdef2!)
 
camosoul said:
So, your position is that the condition I am concerned with cannot exist, when it very much can exist in many obvious ways which I have described in the past 2 pages?

You just crucified yourself. The point was already solid, now it's some kind of Unobtanium/Adamantium alloy. Thank you again, sir.

Evan and Udjin are objective enough to see the truth in this, even if you are not.
Click to expand...
The truth is Minotaur and tungfa are listed on the proposed payroll. I don't want to be suspicious of anyone but this one is sticking out like a sore thumb.
 
moli said:
The truth is Minotaur and tungfa are listed on the proposed payroll. I don't want to be suspicious of anyone but this one is sticking out like a sore thumb.
Click to expand...
What list are you talking about? the project clearly states that anyone can submit a proposal. This includes you and, of course, them.
 
moli said:
The truth is Minotaur and tungfa are listed on the proposed payroll. I don't want to be suspicious of anyone but this one is sticking out like a sore thumb.
Click to expand...

More like a shot at a decent job opportunity. My interest in giving it a try and start checking out code is higher than before but that has to wait until I graduate.
 
moli said:
The truth is Minotaur and tungfa are listed on the proposed payroll. I don't want to be suspicious of anyone but this one is sticking out like a sore thumb.
Click to expand...

W T F
who is listed where ? link ? list ?

i really had it with you and your world paranoia over there !

Edit:
what are you thinking ... man man ....
really after all this time, really,... we are just here to scam you and the whole community out of some coins ? thats why we are doing all of this in your opinion ?

you finally lost it
 
Camosoul is right, elements of this are pure hypocrisy.

"Decentralised governance! Every MN gets a vote! Yay!" immediately followed by, "But we don't trust you, so we're taking the money anyway!" and, "Voters should absolutely not be allowed to vote in what they perceive to be their own best interests!"

Smells like another done deal anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fernando said:
What list are you talking about? the project clearly states that anyone can submit a proposal. This includes you and, of course, them.
Click to expand...
Really? Could I suggest for all testers and anyone else who has volunteered on the project to be paid?
This is getting more and more like something that it wasn't intended for when Evan created this coin...
 
moli said:
Really? Could I suggest for all testers and anyone else who has volunteered on the project to be paid?
This is getting more and more like something that it wasn't intended for when Evan created this coin...
Click to expand...

Who is listed where moli ?
tell us
 
moli said:
Right on the OP https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-s...zed-governance-by-blockchain.4708/#post-51802
Click to expand...

This ?
"Contractors of the blockchain can be developers, outreach professionals, team leaders, attorneys or even people appointed to do specific tasks. We’ll have a website where masternode operators can stay up-to-date on what proposals need to be reviewed."

i do not see my name listed there !

anybody can submit a proposal
if it gets voted or not is another question

new electrum wallet / probably
iPhone this / probably
android that / probably
conference submission in vegas / maybe
travel expenses to CNN / definitely
new haircut for tungfa / NOT
 
interesting discussion is going on here. Let me suggest a solution which might satisfy camosoul. What if master nodes vote on a project. If nay wins nothing happens. If yay wins the network gets switched into a collection mode and since that moment 15% goes towards that project. As soon as required amount is met, the network comes back to the standard mode dividing rewards only between miners and masternodes operators. This way MN operators are forced to pay that 15% but only when it is actually needed, not perpetually.
I don't know how feasible it would be from the technical side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
crowning said:
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.
Click to expand...

Problems with this solution:
- If 50%+1 of the network disagrees on a project it won't ever happen. If 50%+1 of the network cooperates, fund will never be released. --> If a group takes control of 50%+1 it can block any such payouts, or make voting obsolete
- If there's a small project that would require small funding it might never materialize in case it would not get 50% funding, even though a few masternodes could finance it within a short perioud of time --> Only projects with massive interest will materialize
- There are three projects I'd like to get funded, in a specific order based on my priorities. Impossible --> Cannot set priorities
- Having to vote for each and every project offered, instead of only voting for the ones I'm interested in. If everyone will be able to propose projects this means way too many votes needed.
- Imagine one huge project with big support, this means no financing for everything else - One big project would halt the financing of all others
- Voting paradox and no interest in voting as it won't affect end result anyway (cannot find the name of the theory)
- I have some other concerns, but I only listed the ones I have a solution to as well

Solution to the issues above:

Forget the 50%+1 voting. Allow each individual masternode to select the project it wants to support. An additional parameter in masternode.config basically. The relevant percentage would be paid to the project address each round.

- If a group takes control of 50%+1 it can block any such payouts, or make voting obsolete -- solved by not requiring consensus of 50%+1, each MN can subsuduze a project individually
- Only projects with massive interest will materialize -- solved, as even 1 MN can subsidize a project over time
- Cannot set priorities -- solved, can subsidize the project the MN wants, then switch to the next one
- Having to vote for each and every project offered -- solved, has to vote again only when willing to subsidize another project instead
- One big project would halt the financing of all others -- solved

All those MNs that do not have a project selected would fund a predefined project, or altenatively all these funds would go to the top3 funded projects automatically.

Possible flaws:
The project list has to be somehow limited, in order to prevent people from creating projects for themselves. Didn't think about possible solutions that much yet.
 
AnarchicCluster said:
interesting discussion is going on here. Let me suggest a solution which might satisfy camosoul. What if master nodes vote on a project. If nay wins nothing happens. If yay wins the network gets switched into a collection mode and since that moment 15% goes towards that project. As soon as required amount is met, the network comes back to the standard mode dividing rewards only between miners and masternodes operators.
I don't know how feasible it would be from the technical side.
Click to expand...
That would be great but we can't have it because MN ops are all not-to-be-trusted idiots who would never approve any spending at all, ever.
 
tungfa said:
This ?
"Contractors of the blockchain can be developers, outreach professionals, team leaders, attorneys or even people appointed to do specific tasks. We’ll have a website where masternode operators can stay up-to-date on what proposals need to be reviewed."

i do not see my name listed there !

anybody can submit a proposal
if it gets voted or not is another question

new electrum wallet / probably
iPhone this / probably
android that / probably
conference submission in vegas / maybe
travel expenses to CNN / definitely
new haircut for tungfa / NOT
Click to expand...
You still can't see or read? I'm not saying this is definitely done but here let me paste it for you:

upload_2015-4-23_8-39-43.png


Edit: Going to be afk now.. ttyl buddy, keep trolling.. i mean rolling..
 
AnarchicCluster said:
In this case nothing changes we would just got back to the same position we are in now
Click to expand...
Not really. There is currently no functioning proposal / voting system for anyone to submit projects to. Maybe that should be implemented and tried before 15% of the entire money supply gets stockpiled regardless of whether the 'voters' want this to happen or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top