DeepBlue
Active member
The aim of this post is to formulate an improved Dash Decentralised decision-making process with the goal of improving the quality of making solid decisions whilst maintaining full decentralisation. Several problems with decentralised decision-making will be raised. Each problem may have its own discussion page with the goal to maintain focus of the discussion on each specific issue.
The success of any project is only as good as the decisions it makes
We have seen many times the results of poor governance decision in which large quantities of DASH are spent on dead-end projects that have little to no potential. MNOs with business experience often could see the danger signs and raised concerns however, invariably, their voices have been drowned out by the majority. Many inexperienced MNOs voted for projects simply because it appears to be a "good idea". Voting a project through primarily based on it's a "good idea" is not a sound basis to vote for a project that will succeed. There are many other important factors.
Although MNOs are improving at making decisions, there is a long way to go. Each month poor decisions are still being made leading to loss of valuable resources to the network that could be spent progressing worthwhile projects. There is also the problem of MNOs leaving DASH and taking with them their decision-making experience they gained over the years.
The DIF recently proposed removing the requirement for MNOs to approve their proposed investments. However, removal of approval from the MNO network would lead, once again, to a form of centralised decision-making. The attempt for greater DIF autonomy was not voted through. However many MNOs had voted for DIF autonomy signalling their realisation there is a problem with decentralised decision-making in its current form.
Although the network originally appointed the DIF members, MNOs and can vote them out after 1 year, the problem remains that decisions could be made that are not in the best interests of the network. Agreements could also be made that put unnecessary financial burden on the network. Now that the DIF is a legal entity there could also be legal consequences if the DIF was to operate more autonomously. Right now we have trusted DIF members who are working for free. However, in the future we would most likely have to pay for the DIF member contributions. With financial gains for DIF members this again opens the door to possible corruption as we have seen so many times in history when financial decisions are left to trust alone.
There has to be a better way.
The question that needs to be answered is: "How is it possible to ensure high quality decision-making whilst maintaining full decentralisation?
What we need is to develop a new model of decentralised decision-making that is as good, or preferably better than, centralised decision making. But how?
I have found over the years even the most complex or seemingly impossible problems can be solved by following a simple step by step procedure which I will outline below.
1. Firstly, it is absolutely essential to clearly define the core values of the project or business. All decisions need to be made in line with these core values if a project is to maintain its integrity. These values should be recorded and accessible to everyone who works on the project.
2. Clearly and accurately define each problem that needs to be solved.
3. Whenever possible break down bigger problems into smaller more manageable problems.
4. State what the ideal solution would be to each problem.
5. Brainstorm possible solutions to each part of the problem.
6. Assess, and discuss, each of the possible solutions to define which solution would be the best solution. Give a ranking (by votes) to each solution to determine the best solution.
7. Implement the solution.
8. Track and measure how successful the applied solution was and make improvements to it where necessary.
9. Finally, if another problem arises from any of the applied solutions, feed it back into steps 1 through to 8 until the desired outcome, or something better, is achieved.
I see DASH core values as follows:
1. DASH must be non corruptible (both now and for the future),
2. Radical transparency (in code and investment),
3. Decentralisation (not possible to exploit Dash by minority group of individuals),
4. Efficiency (both Investment and coding efficiency)
5. Trustlessness (quality decisions can be made without the need to trust any one individual or group).
6. Payment solution - make tech usable by anyone.
Here is a link to a separate forum page for discussion of DASH's core values.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...sion-making-what-are-dashs-core-values.50310/
Step 1: Defining the problem
I will start by listing the problems I see with the DASH governance system however I hope that other MNOs will contribute to this post and put forward other problems they are aware of.
1. MNOs have widely varying levels of business experience ranging from nothing to long term business owners. As a result MNOs collectively have made many poor decisions over the years voting in worthless dead end projects and drowning out the voices of reason from the more experienced MNOs. Tens of millions of USD of our DASH holdings have been inflated away on dead end projects that had little to no potential to create value to DASH. The reality is most of the poor projects were blatantly poor investments and should never have been considered in the first place.
2. MNOs have widely different opinions, interests and ideas on the definition of what a good project is.
3. Voting in projects just because they seem a "good idea". Many MNOs simply vote in projects because they think it's a good idea. Very little detailed assessment of the proposed project is taking place. Then, when the PO makes off with the money, there is no come back. MNOs almost never consider assessments on the proposal owners themselves, their skill sets, their experience, their behaviour and how they interact with the community. These are all important indicators of the reliability of the people running the project. When working in a decentralised environment it is essential there is a harmonious spirit between participants. Caustic and trouble-making proposal owners should not be awarded project funds because they undermine the very fabric of healthy co-operation which is essential to maintain a decentralised community.
4. Lack of focus to project choice. There is little to no focus to the types of projects being funded. This means we are spending our funds on a wide variety of often unrelated projects instead of focusing on projects that fit our target market.
5. Better to spend than not to spend Some MNOs perceive spending the DASH treasury money is better than not spending it even if the project is not that worthwhile. They have not yet made the connection that every spend on treasury funds devalues their own DASH holdings due to the coins being minted.
6. No formalised mechanism to delegate voting keys to experienced MNOs Although MNOs can delegate their voting keys to other MNOs, this has not been happening. Presumably because a clear guidance procedure to delegate voting keys has not been formalised. MNOs may be afraid to delegate their voting keys for a number of reasons e.g. how to do so securely, knowing how to revoke keys, how to keep track of decisions and reasoning of MNOs they have delegated their voting keys to.
7. Last-minute low quality voting Many MNOs leave their voting to the very last minute without going through and properly studying a proposal.
8. Trolls Trolls are consistently infiltrating the Governance system causing division, damage and discrediting worthwhile projects. Many worthwhile projects have been derailed by trolls posing as genuine MNOs. These individuals disguise their actions by occasionally voting positively on some projects in the hope they will not be called out. Unfortunately because of point 7 above many MNOs are influenced by trolling comments.
9. Brain Drain Experienced MNOs, that have learned from the Governance decision making over the years, may leave the DASH project taking with them their experience and leanings.
10. DASH Business Plan, Target Markets and Strategy outside of DCG. DASH does not have a clear business plan that has been publicly published to assist MNOs to decided if a new project would be in line with Dash's target market. As a result unfocused decisions are being made on projects that are unrelated to our target markets.
11. Capture knowledge and learnings. There is no mechanism to capture, improve, and refer to learnings and principals derived from past experience.
12. No Mechanism For Raising Projects Proactively There is no effective means for MNOs to proactively suggest projects to be assessed, discussed and ranked in terms of importance against other proposed projects other than a discussion forum. The discussion forum does not lend itself to enabling ranking of a large number of potential projects to be worked on.
13. Pre-screening Proposal Owners. There is no mechanism to pre-screen proposal owners to ensure they have the skills and experience they claim to have. Without pre-screening of proposal owners we could be hiring people that are not qualified to deliver what they say they can deliver.
14. Business Plans There is no mechanism to ensure that proposal owner (PO) submit a fully worked out business plan as part of the process for applying for funds. A business plan demonstrates a PO is serious and has thought through the main issues with their project. It also screens out POs that are there for the quick money. A business plan provides valuable and detailed information to MNOs saving them time asking for this information separately. Harvard business school undertook a survey and found that a project is 17% more likely to be successful if the PO had worked out a full business plan before starting their project. For DASH projects the success % value is likely to be considerably higher than the Harvard findings because POs frequently have little or no "skin in the game".
15. Format of Discussions to aid decision making. The format of the Governance discussion boards are not conducive to seeing at a glance a summary of the pros and cons of a project.
16. Sock puppet accounts are systematically destroying healthy discussions. Sock puppet accounts protect the true identities of the troll which in turn protects their true reputation. They can fire off trolling comments safe in the knowledge their real identity would not be damaged. Their goal is to undermine sound decision-making because it can appear that many MNOs are agreeing to vote down a worthwhile proposal, when in fact is is just one person with many accounts. They are exploiting a principal of influence called "social proof" in which people are influenced by decisions made by the majority - even if that decision is a poor one.
17. Ad Hominen attacks : Some MNOs do not know the basic principals of healthy debate and resort to Ad Hominen attacks. Ad Hominen attacks undermine healthy decision making by muddying the waters on the essential topics that need to be discussed. In addition, Ad Hominens can lead to lower participation of contributors who are the target of these attacks. Some people may have great value to bring to the discussion but do not want to be subject to low quality comments directed at their perceived character or motives. Some MNOs do not even know the correct definition of an Ad Hominen attack and continue to justify their damaging behaviour by statements such as "it's important to challenge people's character to uncover their true intentions". Unfortunately, such people are part of the problem. It is only through healthy and constructive debate that quality decisions can be made. If an argument is strong enough then there is no justifiable reason to attack a person's character or perceived motives when addressing specifically their point of view. I believe it may, however, be acceptable for MNOs to call out Ad Hominen attacks provided they have also addressed a valid contribution from the user. Contributors that have poor reasoning ability, weak arguments, or ulterior motives use Ad Hominen attacks in attempt to win over an argument or derail a discussion by discrediting a contributor.
See the following reference that clearly defines Ad Hominen attacks and its damaging consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Also refer to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement
18. Lack of accountability by proposal owners. In any business venture suppliers or contractors are held financially accountable to ensure they deliver what they say they will deliver. Currently DASH has no procedures to pursue any proposal owner who does not deliver what they agreed they would.
19. MNO governance reputation scoring. MNOs cannot earn, in a systematic way, a reputation score that will enable other MNOs to gauge how trustworthy a contributor is likely to be. There is no formalised way to determine how long a MNOs has been with the network, how many worthwhile contributions they have made or how often they resort to Ad Hominem attacks in discussions. We need a way to assign a trust score based on their previous contributions to the DASH project. In addition if a MNO undertakes Ad Hominem attacks there could be a means to record these via an independent and trusted party. If such a trust scoring system could be developed it would enable MNOs, to consider reputation scores when assessing their feedback similar to how vendors on Ebay receive a customer feedback rating with comments backing up the score they give.
20. Tracking projects. Timelines and expected delivery dates need to be published by proposal owners as part of the agreement of receiving funding. Currently we rarely hear from proposal owners and the information we get is minimal. Dashwatch reports go some way to providing a summary of work undertaken but fall short in seeing how the project is progressing in real time.
The above are some of the main problems I see with the DASH governance system. I have thought through all of the above issues and have solutions to some of them.
I encourage other MNOs to list in this post any other issues or problems they see with the governance system so that we can work through these problems.
The success of any project is only as good as the decisions it makes
We have seen many times the results of poor governance decision in which large quantities of DASH are spent on dead-end projects that have little to no potential. MNOs with business experience often could see the danger signs and raised concerns however, invariably, their voices have been drowned out by the majority. Many inexperienced MNOs voted for projects simply because it appears to be a "good idea". Voting a project through primarily based on it's a "good idea" is not a sound basis to vote for a project that will succeed. There are many other important factors.
Although MNOs are improving at making decisions, there is a long way to go. Each month poor decisions are still being made leading to loss of valuable resources to the network that could be spent progressing worthwhile projects. There is also the problem of MNOs leaving DASH and taking with them their decision-making experience they gained over the years.
The DIF recently proposed removing the requirement for MNOs to approve their proposed investments. However, removal of approval from the MNO network would lead, once again, to a form of centralised decision-making. The attempt for greater DIF autonomy was not voted through. However many MNOs had voted for DIF autonomy signalling their realisation there is a problem with decentralised decision-making in its current form.
Although the network originally appointed the DIF members, MNOs and can vote them out after 1 year, the problem remains that decisions could be made that are not in the best interests of the network. Agreements could also be made that put unnecessary financial burden on the network. Now that the DIF is a legal entity there could also be legal consequences if the DIF was to operate more autonomously. Right now we have trusted DIF members who are working for free. However, in the future we would most likely have to pay for the DIF member contributions. With financial gains for DIF members this again opens the door to possible corruption as we have seen so many times in history when financial decisions are left to trust alone.
There has to be a better way.
The question that needs to be answered is: "How is it possible to ensure high quality decision-making whilst maintaining full decentralisation?
What we need is to develop a new model of decentralised decision-making that is as good, or preferably better than, centralised decision making. But how?
I have found over the years even the most complex or seemingly impossible problems can be solved by following a simple step by step procedure which I will outline below.
1. Firstly, it is absolutely essential to clearly define the core values of the project or business. All decisions need to be made in line with these core values if a project is to maintain its integrity. These values should be recorded and accessible to everyone who works on the project.
2. Clearly and accurately define each problem that needs to be solved.
3. Whenever possible break down bigger problems into smaller more manageable problems.
4. State what the ideal solution would be to each problem.
5. Brainstorm possible solutions to each part of the problem.
6. Assess, and discuss, each of the possible solutions to define which solution would be the best solution. Give a ranking (by votes) to each solution to determine the best solution.
7. Implement the solution.
8. Track and measure how successful the applied solution was and make improvements to it where necessary.
9. Finally, if another problem arises from any of the applied solutions, feed it back into steps 1 through to 8 until the desired outcome, or something better, is achieved.
I see DASH core values as follows:
1. DASH must be non corruptible (both now and for the future),
2. Radical transparency (in code and investment),
3. Decentralisation (not possible to exploit Dash by minority group of individuals),
4. Efficiency (both Investment and coding efficiency)
5. Trustlessness (quality decisions can be made without the need to trust any one individual or group).
6. Payment solution - make tech usable by anyone.
Here is a link to a separate forum page for discussion of DASH's core values.
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...sion-making-what-are-dashs-core-values.50310/
Step 1: Defining the problem
I will start by listing the problems I see with the DASH governance system however I hope that other MNOs will contribute to this post and put forward other problems they are aware of.
1. MNOs have widely varying levels of business experience ranging from nothing to long term business owners. As a result MNOs collectively have made many poor decisions over the years voting in worthless dead end projects and drowning out the voices of reason from the more experienced MNOs. Tens of millions of USD of our DASH holdings have been inflated away on dead end projects that had little to no potential to create value to DASH. The reality is most of the poor projects were blatantly poor investments and should never have been considered in the first place.
2. MNOs have widely different opinions, interests and ideas on the definition of what a good project is.
3. Voting in projects just because they seem a "good idea". Many MNOs simply vote in projects because they think it's a good idea. Very little detailed assessment of the proposed project is taking place. Then, when the PO makes off with the money, there is no come back. MNOs almost never consider assessments on the proposal owners themselves, their skill sets, their experience, their behaviour and how they interact with the community. These are all important indicators of the reliability of the people running the project. When working in a decentralised environment it is essential there is a harmonious spirit between participants. Caustic and trouble-making proposal owners should not be awarded project funds because they undermine the very fabric of healthy co-operation which is essential to maintain a decentralised community.
4. Lack of focus to project choice. There is little to no focus to the types of projects being funded. This means we are spending our funds on a wide variety of often unrelated projects instead of focusing on projects that fit our target market.
5. Better to spend than not to spend Some MNOs perceive spending the DASH treasury money is better than not spending it even if the project is not that worthwhile. They have not yet made the connection that every spend on treasury funds devalues their own DASH holdings due to the coins being minted.
6. No formalised mechanism to delegate voting keys to experienced MNOs Although MNOs can delegate their voting keys to other MNOs, this has not been happening. Presumably because a clear guidance procedure to delegate voting keys has not been formalised. MNOs may be afraid to delegate their voting keys for a number of reasons e.g. how to do so securely, knowing how to revoke keys, how to keep track of decisions and reasoning of MNOs they have delegated their voting keys to.
7. Last-minute low quality voting Many MNOs leave their voting to the very last minute without going through and properly studying a proposal.
8. Trolls Trolls are consistently infiltrating the Governance system causing division, damage and discrediting worthwhile projects. Many worthwhile projects have been derailed by trolls posing as genuine MNOs. These individuals disguise their actions by occasionally voting positively on some projects in the hope they will not be called out. Unfortunately because of point 7 above many MNOs are influenced by trolling comments.
9. Brain Drain Experienced MNOs, that have learned from the Governance decision making over the years, may leave the DASH project taking with them their experience and leanings.
10. DASH Business Plan, Target Markets and Strategy outside of DCG. DASH does not have a clear business plan that has been publicly published to assist MNOs to decided if a new project would be in line with Dash's target market. As a result unfocused decisions are being made on projects that are unrelated to our target markets.
11. Capture knowledge and learnings. There is no mechanism to capture, improve, and refer to learnings and principals derived from past experience.
12. No Mechanism For Raising Projects Proactively There is no effective means for MNOs to proactively suggest projects to be assessed, discussed and ranked in terms of importance against other proposed projects other than a discussion forum. The discussion forum does not lend itself to enabling ranking of a large number of potential projects to be worked on.
13. Pre-screening Proposal Owners. There is no mechanism to pre-screen proposal owners to ensure they have the skills and experience they claim to have. Without pre-screening of proposal owners we could be hiring people that are not qualified to deliver what they say they can deliver.
14. Business Plans There is no mechanism to ensure that proposal owner (PO) submit a fully worked out business plan as part of the process for applying for funds. A business plan demonstrates a PO is serious and has thought through the main issues with their project. It also screens out POs that are there for the quick money. A business plan provides valuable and detailed information to MNOs saving them time asking for this information separately. Harvard business school undertook a survey and found that a project is 17% more likely to be successful if the PO had worked out a full business plan before starting their project. For DASH projects the success % value is likely to be considerably higher than the Harvard findings because POs frequently have little or no "skin in the game".
15. Format of Discussions to aid decision making. The format of the Governance discussion boards are not conducive to seeing at a glance a summary of the pros and cons of a project.
16. Sock puppet accounts are systematically destroying healthy discussions. Sock puppet accounts protect the true identities of the troll which in turn protects their true reputation. They can fire off trolling comments safe in the knowledge their real identity would not be damaged. Their goal is to undermine sound decision-making because it can appear that many MNOs are agreeing to vote down a worthwhile proposal, when in fact is is just one person with many accounts. They are exploiting a principal of influence called "social proof" in which people are influenced by decisions made by the majority - even if that decision is a poor one.
17. Ad Hominen attacks : Some MNOs do not know the basic principals of healthy debate and resort to Ad Hominen attacks. Ad Hominen attacks undermine healthy decision making by muddying the waters on the essential topics that need to be discussed. In addition, Ad Hominens can lead to lower participation of contributors who are the target of these attacks. Some people may have great value to bring to the discussion but do not want to be subject to low quality comments directed at their perceived character or motives. Some MNOs do not even know the correct definition of an Ad Hominen attack and continue to justify their damaging behaviour by statements such as "it's important to challenge people's character to uncover their true intentions". Unfortunately, such people are part of the problem. It is only through healthy and constructive debate that quality decisions can be made. If an argument is strong enough then there is no justifiable reason to attack a person's character or perceived motives when addressing specifically their point of view. I believe it may, however, be acceptable for MNOs to call out Ad Hominen attacks provided they have also addressed a valid contribution from the user. Contributors that have poor reasoning ability, weak arguments, or ulterior motives use Ad Hominen attacks in attempt to win over an argument or derail a discussion by discrediting a contributor.
See the following reference that clearly defines Ad Hominen attacks and its damaging consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Also refer to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement
18. Lack of accountability by proposal owners. In any business venture suppliers or contractors are held financially accountable to ensure they deliver what they say they will deliver. Currently DASH has no procedures to pursue any proposal owner who does not deliver what they agreed they would.
19. MNO governance reputation scoring. MNOs cannot earn, in a systematic way, a reputation score that will enable other MNOs to gauge how trustworthy a contributor is likely to be. There is no formalised way to determine how long a MNOs has been with the network, how many worthwhile contributions they have made or how often they resort to Ad Hominem attacks in discussions. We need a way to assign a trust score based on their previous contributions to the DASH project. In addition if a MNO undertakes Ad Hominem attacks there could be a means to record these via an independent and trusted party. If such a trust scoring system could be developed it would enable MNOs, to consider reputation scores when assessing their feedback similar to how vendors on Ebay receive a customer feedback rating with comments backing up the score they give.
20. Tracking projects. Timelines and expected delivery dates need to be published by proposal owners as part of the agreement of receiving funding. Currently we rarely hear from proposal owners and the information we get is minimal. Dashwatch reports go some way to providing a summary of work undertaken but fall short in seeing how the project is progressing in real time.
The above are some of the main problems I see with the DASH governance system. I have thought through all of the above issues and have solutions to some of them.
I encourage other MNOs to list in this post any other issues or problems they see with the governance system so that we can work through these problems.
Last edited:
