Vote: Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

TaoOfSatoshi said:
Yes, improve the product first, then when it is close to its final form, then we do the full-court press PR so that when people respond to that PR, they are not disappointed in the product and discourage their friends. Word-of-mouth is powerful as well, and it will help us having people happy with Dash.
Click to expand...

I would mention that PR could be very different, targeted to different group of audience - is it not only about mass public supposed to use dash "in the shop".

  • Readers of Forbes, WSJ, ... may don't care about "is the interface beautiful" or "is Darksend mixing fast" at the present time. But they may be interested in getting good ROI with DASH in nearest 5 years.
  • Programmers from Tech sites may don't care about ROI, but may be interested in attend "Developers contest" or even interested in becoming part of something really great (Dash team :wink:).
  • MLM-people may not be interested in code and ROI, but they know how to organize people's network to multiply community (and price) in short period of time.
  • ... and so on.
So IMO we don't need to wait forever for being perfect before start acting. There is alway area for some niche (targeted) PR.
 
I know this is late in the discussion; I have mostly been reading as time permitted, however I did not see this particular idea presented and if it was I apologize that I missed it. Just a small suggestion on the voting system of the Master Nodes. I agree that allowing Master Nodes Operators control the funding account thru voting is a great idea. However, there will most certainly be those MN operators who are not interested in keeping up on the forms and voting. To this end I think there should be the option for MN's to choose an OPT-OUT of voting setting. This IMO would change the dynamics of the system if only the MN who had not OPT-OUT were counted in the vote. I know Abstain is similar but it is snot the same. With the OPT-OUT feature we would see a better read of Yea and Nay percentage compared to Abstain. A MN operator may chose to stay opted in but want to abstain from a vote due to real indifference on the particular vote and that would be more clear if those who really were not interested/ had the time/ had already OPT-OUT. In my line of work there are times when I am overwhelmed and would not be able to seriously follow what is being voted on. I would OPT-OUT during those times and back in when I could make informed votes. Also as a side note it had been proposed to fine those who don't vote, which I am completely against, however, if tragically it moved that direction the OPT-OUT would allow operators to abstain without penalty.
 
Darkuopm said:
I know this is late in the discussion; I have mostly been reading as time permitted, however I did not see this particular idea presented and if it was I apologize that I missed it. Just a small suggestion on the voting system of the Master Nodes. I agree that allowing Master Nodes Operators control the funding account thru voting is a great idea. However, there will most certainly be those MN operators who are not interested in keeping up on the forms and voting. To this end I think there should be the option for MN's to choose an OPT-OUT of voting setting. This IMO would change the dynamics of the system if only the MN who had not OPT-OUT were counted in the vote. I know Abstain is similar but it is snot the same. With the OPT-OUT feature we would see a better read of Yea and Nay percentage compared to Abstain. A MN operator may chose to stay opted in but want to abstain from a vote due to real indifference on the particular vote and that would be more clear if those who really were not interested/ had the time/ had already OPT-OUT. In my line of work there are times when I am overwhelmed and would not be able to seriously follow what is being voted on. I would OPT-OUT during those times and back in when I could make informed votes. Also as a side note it had been proposed to fine those who don't vote, which I am completely against, however, if tragically it moved that direction the OPT-OUT would allow operators to abstain without penalty.
Click to expand...
The most practical implementation here would be to enable "abstain" as a valid voting option and set the default vote to null rather than "ABSTAIN." This would implement the desired functionality without too much convolution of the voting system. At the end of the voting period, or for any official vote counts, all null votes would read the same as abstain (because that is exactly what they are) but allow those interested in aggregating the data to make such claims of masternode involvement.
 
Sorry, late to the party have not been keeping up with the announcements.

eduffield said:
An Update To The Proposal
{
"one" : {
Some URL,
"BlockStart" : 1000,
"BlockEnd" : 24922,
"PaymentCountTotal" : 1,
"PaymentCountLeft" : 1,
"PaymentAddress" : "yDrdpBqfExiGbssu388t2k3N3de2KsWeNN",
"Ratio" : 1.00000000,
"Yeas" : 1,
"Nays" : 0,
"Abstains" : 0,
"Alloted" : 7500000000,
"TotalBudgetAlloted" : 7500000000
}
}
Eduffield,
Some suggestions regarding:
  • The proposal number could be the next block generated or the last block generated by automatic query of the blockchain. This would prevent any mixup between the sites.
  • The values for USD in the blockchain is a great idea but where will that data come from? Cryptsy, Bitfinex, and some other sites have a different dollar amount. So this value would need to be calculated for every block.
  • See item above, USD, EUR, YEN, etc. embedded in the chain would be valuable for businesses, etc. but do you limit it to the 3 major currencies only.
  • You would be locking the payout amounts per block permanently by specifying number of blocks until completion. If I say I need $8000, and I am getting $1 per block you cannot raise the reward per block because you are paying 10% of the block.
  • What is considered a 'winning' vote? 51% of the number of votes placed or 51% of the total MN's?
The websites I saw with vote counts are really cool but you gentlemen forgot that there will be multiple votes going on at the same time, so plan accordingly.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top