I agree with this, the budgeting system is purely that..a budget for funding - when you submit a proposal ensure you are proposing something which you have control over and can deliver with no other external dependencies.
A Call for tungfa to Heed the Masternodes' Vote
- Thread starter amanda_b_johnson
- Start date
I agree with this, the budgeting system is purely that..a budget for funding - when you submit a proposal ensure you are proposing something which you have control over and can deliver with no other external dependencies.
TechWoman92
New member
Does anyone else question the intentions of Amanda? Maybe she wants to make the community more dependent on her to run the new channel by getting rid of the old one.
She likely can do a good job with it but what happens if she asks to double her rates when her contract expires? Keeping the old account could be a helpful backup
She likely can do a good job with it but what happens if she asks to double her rates when her contract expires? Keeping the old account could be a helpful backup
Quick note: those who already voted can change their vote too - they can't do it too often (that was made to protect network from getting spammed by tons of votes, because votes are free of charge) but other than that there is no restrictions on changhing your vote.
Hi Amanda, I just sent you the 5 DASH reimbursement, you can see the transaction here:
https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/t...8ce1a382a18a1ccc144ce9ab40b73cc3ef16f9663.htm
I am really looking forward to seeing the Dash Youtube show we all appreciate very much the work you do. I think that in a decentralized organization structure we should all just be a little patient, communicate with each other and use the tools we have at our disposal to resolve any difference in opinions. It is natural to have different opinions about specific topics specially in things like SEO and social media strategy where there may be more than one way to accomplish something. Having said this, the key thing is we have a tool to make a decision faster than other networks and move on, lets say we can all disagree in a friendly way and still decide on a course of action which I think is the real power of a governance system.
Anyway, I am excited about your show I even showed it to my family so they could see there was a cool DASH show on Youtube, so I hope your show is a success and you are able to inform the public about the good work so many people are doing here including you.
Last edited:
Strictly speaking, you are correct that the "mnbudget" commands are just that... they are for budgets. That said, we have used the budgeting system on at least a couple of occasions to resolve non-budget decisions, which has proven valuable. But these should be reserved for really strategic, large decisions, in my opinion... not execution level tasks. The most recent example was the block size increase proposal. We also have used it to agree on reallocating the Public Awareness budget to fiat gateways development (but this was still a budget-related decision).
I do think that the mnbudget provides a valuable tool to the core team to obtain input from the community, but that does not absolve a core team member from their responsibility to make hard decisions that might be right, but ultimately unpopular. At the end of the day, this is a democracy, but it's actually more like shareholders than voters. Also, it is more like a representative democracy than a direct one.
Democracy = 1 vote per person
Shareholders = 1 vote per Masternode
Direct democracy = Voters pass laws directly
Representative democracy = Voters elect representatives which work to pass laws
I also believe that the technology itself will enable our shareholders to move down the spectrum from purely representative democracy to some yet-undefined mix of direct vs. representative (which I think we will figure out in time, based on what works). In a traditional corporation, board elections are only once a year and that's pretty much the input you get. However, we can collect input at any point in the year, vote out the core team at any point, get more granular on controlling the strategy and/or budget, etc. It is the technology itself that enables this to happen. But at the end of the day, the core team remains as "representatives" in the sense that many decisions are made by the core team on behalf of the network every day. People will be handed responsibility to execute certain roles, collect input (from the community / experts / etc), become more informed than the masternode owners ever could on it, make a decision, and act.
What I don't want to see happen is that every time a decision doesn't go a community member's way immediately and exactly as they wanted, they resort to "decision proposals" on minor non-strategic decisions. My opinion is that in this case, it didn't warrant a proposal. I strongly believe setting this precedent would be detrimental to the success of the project. I suspect this one could potentially pass, I don't know... we will see. But even if it does, I suspect many others will follow and the masternode owners will quickly grow weary of resolving these minor spats and will vote them down. We need to learn to work together and compromise rather than have a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude and run home to cry to the MN owners every time a two-day-old dispute isn't yet resolved.
EDIT: In fact, the more I contemplate this, the more inappropriate I believe it is for @amanda_b_johnson to involve 1,000+ people (masternode owners) in a two-day old disagreement that she has clearly made little effort to understand or resolve through debate and compromise. Surely she can find a way to resolve this without asking 1,000+ people to resolve it for her... People that are probably generally ill-equipped with the necessary information - like myself - to make these decisions. Or who don't want to consume a bunch of time educating themselves on the issue to make said decision. This probably results in poor decisions being reached and/or consumes an unbelievable amount of time of 1,000 people to educate themselves when a few people could have worked independently to resolve it.
Please, don't take this as criticism of you or your involvement here (I think your work is great and I'm very glad to see you involved) personally. You are far from the only person that desires more "granular" use of the budgeting system than I do. For all I know, I am the outlier with unpopular views. We all will have different views that we express as we define how the system is to be appropriately used for all our benefit. I only mean to criticize the ideas. Either people will agree with me or they won't, a precedent will be established that we try for a while, and it will continue to evolve as the project grows and learns from past experiences. I just strongly believe in a different optimal use of the budgeting system and the role input from the community should play, and in what forms that input is best provided.
Last edited:
TheDashGuy
Well-known member
amanda_b_johnson
Well-known member
Thanks all for thoughtful replies and input.
Show will proceed as planned, first episode (new one, not pilot) to be aired this Wednesday the 15th. All is well.
Show will proceed as planned, first episode (new one, not pilot) to be aired this Wednesday the 15th. All is well.
Please don't question Amanda's good intentions. She has made a very good point, and i hope something will be done to fix this real issue soon. It seems to me, Amanda got everyone's attention on this issue, which is obviously important to her for at least 2 reasons. 1. She understands how youtube and social media work and sees an issue with our conflicting channels and 2. She undoubtedly wants her show to be on a channel that will direct as many people to her show as possible (who wouldn't want improved traffic?) and don't forget 3. all this would be very good for Dash.
So thank you Amanda!
Lets celebrate people that push. I think you all have come up with some great ideas because of this push. How about we give them a go?
I'm keeping my yes votes because I like the push
It means someone is excited. It means you all talked about it, coming up with pros and cons, and finally, I think you all came up with some good ideas. It doesn't mean it's set in stone, simply by the nature of the request. In the next budget system, debates like this can change in the initial proposal. The proposer can update it with refined information as it develops. This will make the budget system so much more robust. Anyway, good discussion!P.S. If we do redirects for all of our videos, can we do it the other direction? Can we notify followers to change their subscriptions? Or can we notify them when there is a new video up, even if it's not hosted on the old channel? Can we automatically redirect? I think those are all great ideas
Yes, it would be a weird situation, but you have a tool at your disposal: stop funding the core team. If even with that we don't listen, then I'm afraid nothing can be done. There is no way to force someone to do or stop doing something. There is no coercion, so in the end we need to talk about things and convince each other. I don't say this to say that we can do whatever we want, I'm just trying to describe the system. And let's not forget that we all want the same, the betterment of Dash, so we should be able to work together towards that.
Re contradictions, there are many ways to solve them and each of them has its own merits. Most recent is one criteria. Biggest approval rate could be another. Or some kind of reputation attached to the user who makes the proposal. Or a combination. Or many other things I'm not seeing atm. The system still needs work, so it is great that we are discussing this because I'm sure we'll come up with good ideas.
Edit: when in doubt, always agree with Churchill
demo
Well-known member
DarkoinTV youtube channel is a property that belongs to tungfa. Mastenode owners are not be allowed to vote asking for this property to be confiscated.
This is not democracy. This is not even capitalism. If you vote for another property that do not belongs to you to be confiscated, and if you apply this vote by force (direct or indirect), this is imperialism.
If you dont like DarkoinTv youtube channel and you want this to be deleted, you should BUY it from tungfa.
So a vote is needed, a vote using numbers. How much dash coins masternode owners give to tungfa in order to buy darkoinTV from him. (and then delete it)?
An amount should be voted using numerical voting, and if tungfa agrees with the voted amount, then he will sell this youtube channel to the masternode owners, and then masternode owners will be able to do to that channel whatever they want.
If tungfa does not agree with the proposed amount, then masternode owners should raise the amount of dash, until tungfa agrees. This is the correct thing to be done. Voting in order to confiscate tungfa's property is not a moral thing.
Last edited:
TheDashGuy
Well-known member
TroyDASH
Well-known member
No one is suggesting that his property be confiscated. It's not even a question of whether masternodes are "allowed" to do something like that. They can't, period. But considering that he is already being paid from the blockchain as a core team member, the implication of the vote, if approved, is to (1) send a message about what the MN ops would like him to do, and (2) send a message that failure to do it may potentially put his funding at risk (although the reality of this is far from being realized for a number of reasons.) That's all it is. It's an exercise of seeing what our DGBB can or can't do. Although, most likely this will be resolved anyway regardless of what the vote outcome is
demo
Well-known member
Of course they can't. So why do they vote for something they can't do?
What do you mean "pottentially put his funding at risk"? Do you mean that you are planning to fire him because he refuses to accept for his property to be confiscated? Or do you mean that dash community in general is in danger in case the channel is preserved, so indirectly he is also in danger as a part of this community? In this second case, there are a lot more important things that put dash community in danger, like the "pork barrel". The pork barrel is supposed to belong to all masternode owners. It is a vast amount of money. Why dont you focus on that instead of focusing on other people's properties? And how can you know for sure that dash community is in danger whenever a second alternative dash youtube channel is preserved? I could claim that dash community is in danger whenever a single youtube account exists, because this is a centralized thing, which is against DAO philosophy. So the more dash youtube channel you have, controlled by different persons, the better it is.
It is not an exercise. It is just a stupid vote. So the correct answer to that vote it is not "yes" or "no". It is "I dont like the vote because I am not allowed to decide about other people's properties". Yet another reason to allow "other" as an alternative option in the budget voting.
And of course yet another reason to allow numerical voting, because the correct thing to be done is to offer an amount of dash to tungfa, in order to sell his youtube channel to the masternode owners, so that they can do to the channel whatever they want.
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Your premise is incorrect. We are not voting to confiscate anything. If the proposal passes, no one is going to force anyone to do anything. Because that isn't what this is. It's merely an incentive using what we have at our disposal.
If is was a stand-alone proposal recipient then it would not be unreasonable for the MNs to send a message about their intention to continue funding them or not depending on whether they comply with a request that is related to the reason they were hired in the first place. Again, the fact that this is a member of a team which is paid as a group, makes it more complicated than that.
No, that is not what I meant.
demo
Well-known member
So this vote is a clear warning to tungfa.
"Obey to us, or you are fired."
I see....
But is this youtube channel created whenever tungfa was already a dash employee.
Did you paid him for creating that channel?
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
Did I not say it was more complicated than that in this case? Don't put words in my mouth. But in principle, yes I think that is completely legitimate. The MNs have a right to stop funding projects if they are not delivering an acceptable service. I am NOT saying we are close do doing that here.
demo
Well-known member
If that channel was created before tungfa became a dash employee, then the channel is his own property, and it is immoral to ask that channel from him.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
It would still be his property even if he created it after he became a dash employee. This is not the point. It is immoral to force people to do a certain thing with their property. It is NOT immoral to tell people that if they fail to do a certain thing with their property, then we won't pay them anymore. It is completely different.
demo
Well-known member
But if you threaten someone to fire him in case he does not dismiss his property, then you force him to do that thing.
I think the crutial thing is whenever this property has been created. If it was created before he became a dash employee, then you should not threat him to fire him. If it was created after he became an employee, then the creation of the channel was part of his job, and the job of an employee belongs to the employers.
It depends on what you are asking for. If the employee is in urgent need of money, then it is immoral to take advantage of his need and demand for his property to be used in a way he does not agree with.
Last edited:
TroyDASH
Well-known member
It's not force if they can still choose not to do it.
The crucial thing is not when the property was created, it's whether it has to do with the reason the person is being paid. Although technically, the MNs can stop funding a project for any reason, whether reasonable or not. Regardless, if the masternodes were to actually defund a project because it failed to obey a request, then they would have to deal with the consequences of that. If the project was still delivering more value than not, even though it did not obey a request, then the MNs would risk losing that value by trying to de-fund it.