you are just so dam dramatic !
Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
you are just so dam dramatic !
camosoul
Well-known member
The only entity that has ever survived such a behavior is government, because they can just print more money. That's the only way to live with that flaw. Do you propose we just fabricate more DASH out of nowhere to keep this idea from imploding? It's inflation, it only postpones the inevitable...
Well I most definitely feel there should not be any way in any option for some masternodes to have an option to just vote themselves more profit while others fund projects that benefit them. No way.
Fortunately we would have a vote to see if the new model gets approved so we dont all need to agree, the crowd can decide.
camosoul
Well-known member
The crowd voted to create so much debt in the USA that the country cannot possibly do anything but default on it...
There is no such thing as collective wisdom. When the crowd is dumb as shit, the crowd will destroy itself. The crowd is always dumb as shit.
I like almost everything about this idea, except the fatal flaw of being an open-ended pork barrel that encourages waste and abuse. Make it closed-ended. You present the idea of "wisdome of the crowd" and then immediately say "the crowd cannot be trusted becasue it will vote no all the time to keep the money."
Do you believe in the wisdom of the MN operators as a collective or not? You can't put the idea forward as a solution and then claim it's the problem in the very next sentence... You're running up against something you know is wrong when that happens.
Last edited by a moderator:
I still disagree with you all the same. No option for some operators to keep more profits, while others fund development that benefits them. No way.
camosoul
Well-known member
So, "wisdom of the crowd" except that the crowd will always do what is wrong so the crowd shouldn't get a choice. Your impossible, self-defeating argument proves the point.
An irrational paradox highlights the truth like nothing else... Thank you sir.
just a small idea;
maybe something like an expire-date can be build in to the funds.
They need to be assigned to a project for a specific date (let's say 60 days from now), or otherwise they expire and return to miners/masternode rewards?
That way it prevents stockpiling up funds
maybe something like an expire-date can be build in to the funds.
They need to be assigned to a project for a specific date (let's say 60 days from now), or otherwise they expire and return to miners/masternode rewards?
That way it prevents stockpiling up funds
Such a nonsensical statement makes any attempt to converse with you on this topic beyond futile.
This is how the discussion should go. Ideas - good or bad, feasible or not - not bickering or nonsensical arguments. Enough for now, Need to earn some fiat to convert to MN and support this wonderful project.
It is not a paradox, wisdom of the crowd where the operators pick the best projects to invest in and dismiss the poor ones, without an option to just pay themselves.
If we do it your way then we turn enforcement off too and let the miners decide if they want to contribute or not. Your way does not work.
camosoul
Well-known member
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...
camosoul
Well-known member
You're jumping to extremes.
The issue is not paying one's self more, but allowing miners to get paid even when they aren't mining. If devs aren't deving, they shouldn't get paid. Just like MNs that don't do their job shouldn't get paid, and miners that aren't mining shouldn't get paid.
If there is no project worth doing, the option to unplug that miner and not pay it needs to be an option. That means, by default, that the money stays in the contributing members, not continue to be given to non-contributors...
It is a false choice to say that I get to choose which project, or no project, but still pay for it when there is no Service. Proof of Service, I thought it was?
Of course if devs aren't deving they shouldnt get paid. You just vote no and they stop getting paid and you fund some other dev or project that does work. There is not an option where you need no dev, so there is no waste.
camosoul
Well-known member
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.
May I add my 2nd-biggest concern (after the detractors, posted above)?
Democracy doesn't work, in business more than all
I am not saying that everything should be centralized, but it's pure utopia that ALL the MNs owners have the skill, the time and the vision to understand proposals.
Managing a company/business (we are leaving the pure tech area here) it's a different story from building a cryptocoin from the technical point of view.
We have plenty of evidence that this CAN'T work in the long run. A strategy has to be consistent. If we are going crazy about one idea THEN another THEN another (iterate n times) according to short term wins rather than long term scenarios, we'll just burn money and, as a consequence, the value of the asset.
As long as we are inside the tech area i am not skilled enough, and if we have head developers with ideas and project they deserve money.
But if we go into mktg, legal, any kind of deal that's a totally different story, and if this coin will be worth something we need a small group of people and not random votes from wannabes (no offence, guys)
If you want to study a case, look for "movimento 5 stelle" in Italy, that was able to get about 1/3 of the votes in the elections. The concept was brilliant ("we decide everything voting online etc") the esecution was terrible (how on earth someone that barely can do basic math is able to write a 5year plan for a whole State in the EU/Euro Macroarea?).
My 2 cents (and my MNs votes...)
BTW stop pushing the price up! I was thinking about putting some more but now you cost a lot!!!
Democracy doesn't work, in business more than all
I am not saying that everything should be centralized, but it's pure utopia that ALL the MNs owners have the skill, the time and the vision to understand proposals.
Managing a company/business (we are leaving the pure tech area here) it's a different story from building a cryptocoin from the technical point of view.
We have plenty of evidence that this CAN'T work in the long run. A strategy has to be consistent. If we are going crazy about one idea THEN another THEN another (iterate n times) according to short term wins rather than long term scenarios, we'll just burn money and, as a consequence, the value of the asset.
As long as we are inside the tech area i am not skilled enough, and if we have head developers with ideas and project they deserve money.
But if we go into mktg, legal, any kind of deal that's a totally different story, and if this coin will be worth something we need a small group of people and not random votes from wannabes (no offence, guys)
If you want to study a case, look for "movimento 5 stelle" in Italy, that was able to get about 1/3 of the votes in the elections. The concept was brilliant ("we decide everything voting online etc") the esecution was terrible (how on earth someone that barely can do basic math is able to write a 5year plan for a whole State in the EU/Euro Macroarea?).
My 2 cents (and my MNs votes...)
BTW stop pushing the price up! I was thinking about putting some more but now you cost a lot!!!
Is not that, is just that your proposed solution is worst than the potential issue you describe. There should not be a way for the masternodes to pay themselves.
A more sensible approach is to start small and grow into it as we learn and get familiar with the new system.
alex-ru
Well-known member
Largely agree - and there are solutions to this situations - different foundations (including Official one).
Let users have options vote not only for particular projects, but also for particular Foundations (just for example - "Tungfa PR fund", "Minotaur adoption fund", "Fernando legal fund" and so on...)
Such a foundations can offer a kind of "programs" and can spent money instant without further additional matching. Then report results to community - so everybody decide are they effective and whether they are worthy of further confidence.
Everybody can claim "I can do the same more effectively" and community will decide whom to trust. So system will be self and quickly adjusted.
Last edited by a moderator:
rango
Active member
This proposal is outstanding, Evan and all other contributors!
1. We need to have 15% collected as fixed tax with no way to return. No MN owner has to do the decision "put money back to own pockets or invest in development". That way the question of greed is solved elegantly and he simply can focus on productive work and decide, wether a project should be funded or not. Exessive money can be saved for larger projects. The ideas to put money on will never stop. Yes, there will be waste of money. But even money invested with only 50% efficiency increases the value of DASH disproportionate. So it's worth it!
2. 40k USD monthly budget is nothing. Even 200-500k USD per month (taking future DASH value increase into account) is not much if we want to make this thing really big!
3. I suppose Evan and few other initial miners are still holding about 800k in DASH or equivalent in MN. So they have 33% of total voting power (given 2500 MN). So the rest of distributed MN operators still have the power to vote against or for critical projects with 66% of the votes. So even this point seems to be reasonably balanced right from the start.
1. We need to have 15% collected as fixed tax with no way to return. No MN owner has to do the decision "put money back to own pockets or invest in development". That way the question of greed is solved elegantly and he simply can focus on productive work and decide, wether a project should be funded or not. Exessive money can be saved for larger projects. The ideas to put money on will never stop. Yes, there will be waste of money. But even money invested with only 50% efficiency increases the value of DASH disproportionate. So it's worth it!
2. 40k USD monthly budget is nothing. Even 200-500k USD per month (taking future DASH value increase into account) is not much if we want to make this thing really big!
3. I suppose Evan and few other initial miners are still holding about 800k in DASH or equivalent in MN. So they have 33% of total voting power (given 2500 MN). So the rest of distributed MN operators still have the power to vote against or for critical projects with 66% of the votes. So even this point seems to be reasonably balanced right from the start.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think what Evan is proposing is brilliant in many ways, however, I think Camosoul has a point. I can see both sides of the argument but ultimately any redistribution of block rewards into a slush fund to pay devs - no matter how democratic the process - is effectively a tax on productivity/income imo.
Wisdom of the crowd, for all it's positives, can also be countered with tragedy of the commons, an economic theory that is worth considering during the design process of creating a self-sustainable, self-governing, Decentralized Blockchain.
Walter
Wisdom of the crowd, for all it's positives, can also be countered with tragedy of the commons, an economic theory that is worth considering during the design process of creating a self-sustainable, self-governing, Decentralized Blockchain.
Walter