@GrandMasterDash Your responses make me think you're missing the point of his post.
Building the Dash DAO
- Thread starter JulioDash
- Start date
I guess I missed the point because, apparently, masternodes should give up their ability to vote:
"Masternodes do not have all the variables necessary to make decisions on a granular level. These should be reserved for team leaders, managers, directors and executive to make, because they are the most technically competent and have the most information."
...yep, apparently, there is no responsibility for decision makers to explain their actions in layman's terms. Let me tell you, in a criminal court of law, a lot of scientific evidence is presented, and the onus is most definitely on the prosecution to explain to a jury of 12 ordinary people what it actually means.
But nevertheless, we should give up autonomy to a SINGLE "proper organization"?
"We have to build the Dash DAO as a proper organization and fully departmentalized"
...no overlap and no competition. Heaven forbid that someone else might step on the toes of Core.
Ryan Taylor once argued that Core (Evolution) and Marketing need to be one in order to coordinate and retain necessary project secrecy (first mover advantage etc). But this full-on organization includes things like HR, Legal, Outreach, Quality Assurance and so on. Why must we build a big ship that is hard to turn? By assimilating into a Visa-like structures, we become no better. By supporting this, we are, in effect, creating and funding a Blockstream, and we know what that leads to. Inevitability, the only viable way to challenge and compete with such an organization is to fork.
I suggest, what we need is to hand over (separate) protocol, DAPI and scalability to the R&D DFO. Evolution (the front-end), is just one implementation of what could be. There are other applications and front-ends that we can fund, leveraging the DAPI. For example, there are a number of messenger-like environments out there; Status Network, Obsidian, Kik and others. Or perhaps a DFO exclusively devoted to privacy centric apps e.g. resources for free speech and whistleblowing. All these things become possible - without conflict of interest - when we decouple back-end and front-end.
Please keep in mind, many of us have pinned all our hopes on the simplicity that Evolution and the DAPI will bring. I'm sure it will be epic but, 1) it's dangerous to put all our eggs in one basket, and 2) dash is not the only player attacking this problem e.g. Request Network.
Dash gets a lot of flack for being marketing-centric. If we decouple the various parts, as explained above, we can create new DFOs to build and explore these other possibilities. Right now, if we want to explore these other ideas, we have to wait for someone (no-one) to come forward and propose it. Or we foolishly hope that Core will propose it.. but they don't because, in their words, they are too focused on Evolution.
I suggest, what we need is to hand over (separate) protocol, DAPI and scalability to the R&D DFO. Evolution (the front-end), is just one implementation of what could be. There are other applications and front-ends that we can fund, leveraging the DAPI. For example, there are a number of messenger-like environments out there; Status Network, Obsidian, Kik and others. Or perhaps a DFO exclusively devoted to privacy centric apps e.g. resources for free speech and whistleblowing. All these things become possible - without conflict of interest - when we decouple back-end and front-end.
Please keep in mind, many of us have pinned all our hopes on the simplicity that Evolution and the DAPI will bring. I'm sure it will be epic but, 1) it's dangerous to put all our eggs in one basket, and 2) dash is not the only player attacking this problem e.g. Request Network.
Dash gets a lot of flack for being marketing-centric. If we decouple the various parts, as explained above, we can create new DFOs to build and explore these other possibilities. Right now, if we want to explore these other ideas, we have to wait for someone (no-one) to come forward and propose it. Or we foolishly hope that Core will propose it.. but they don't because, in their words, they are too focused on Evolution.
jimbursch
Well-known member
This is definitely a legitimate concern. What's being proposed is an effective, powerful organization within the Dash ecosystem. But at least this is an explicit mapping out of such an organization. Arguably, Core is implicitly already headed in this direction (see appointment of a CMO).
Vedran Yoweri
Active member
there is always a reason to talk a lot.
i'll walk through the posts and comment when appropriate.
you start by saying "The common idea is that the Dash DAO will fund other DAOs". maybe for some, but that idea makes no sense imo. the dash dao is made up by three parts: dash software, miners and masternodes. the combination of these produced the dash dao. the dao grands individuals / groups / companies (DFO) jobs and funds them. working for the dash dao does not make you a dao.
in the same paragraph you bring this wonderfull invention down to "just a budget" and you say i should not mind the details.
about the concept "dao" you state "An entity that depends totally or partially on money from the Dash Budget is not itself autonomous". this is true, the dao depends not on any budget, DFO do. but you applied it to the dash dao. this makes no sense. but it helps confusing people.
then you come to the conclusion there is only one dao. but you call it a budget. the budget is a function of the dao, not "the dao" without the three components it's impossible to just have "a budget" created out of thin air.
"it has one of the most professional teams in the industry, and what appeals to me the most is the possibility of becoming a self-funded business"
you mean the dash dao funds one of the most professional teams in the industry and what appeals to you is the possibility of becoming a self-funded business.
i'm sure every business would want that. but they can't. because they are a business, not a dao. i'm also sure you would like dash to become a business and no longer be a dao.
then you explain to us the features of dash and explain to us there is competition. and that the only way to beat the competition is becoming a business. i think i see where this is going.
then you explain to us we will have obsolete tech if we don't innovate and only a business can cure this.
that's a not very creative way of being condescending. you can do better.
this dao and the groups of people building these crypto systems steamrolled over banks with innovation. never saw any business do that ever. even governments kneel for these goons. we kick um in the balls and walk over their faces. while simultaneous dealing with trolls like you.
"They will protect their market share aggressively and by all means necessary" scary.
it's just pages and pages of open doors. until we come to the second org chart where you split up core over a larger org chart with a executive between us and a dissolved core and a lot of other (perceived) new departments.
i know you want that to happen dude. but you should be more subtle, this will never fly.
and in your point 3 you tell us again that if we are not a business we will lose.
lots of open doors again. talking about how great businesses are, especially executives and administrators are cool. masternodes not so much, they make bad decisions. businesses are cool and smart. we should do this!
this is just another dump of condescending shit you lay out here dude.
"#4: Masternodes do not have all the variables necessary to make decisions on a granular level. These should be reserved for team leaders, managers, directors and executive to make, because they are the most technically competent and have the most information."
go fuck yourself.
the bad news paragraph.
you are technically incompetent.
" #5: The Masternode Network is not technically competent to make granular decisions."
you dont know shit about mno. fuck off.
the good news paragraph.
it's all good, we already fixed it. "we" are not aware what's going on and we should see core as just a software company.
you tell us you appreciate mr taylors work but he cannot compete with a business. we will lose.
i think he can.
you also explain that the dao delegates work to core. let's just ignore the pages of open doors.
Scenarios...
you think i'm agitated and you are sorry.
Asking the right questions
all made up questions by made up mno. go fuck yourself.
Sir, you are a long time troll. have fun with your scheme.
@Vedran Yoweri
The fact that you call this trolling is ridiculous.. You think a large percentage of masternode can make better decisions than a qualified specialist with experience and inside information?
Let's be real most masternodes aren't privy to the information about evolution or any other competitive advantage that might come along and have to be kept secret. To be clear Masternodes should still be able to defund each DFO on a monthly basis
Imo each of these groups should be cohesive and submit separate proposals, and the DFOs shouldn't take up more than 70-80%(maybe less) as mastermined said.
It's a big picture idea that would (imo) help Dash tremendously. Figuring out how it could work is definitely worth discussing.
The fact that you call this trolling is ridiculous.. You think a large percentage of masternode can make better decisions than a qualified specialist with experience and inside information?
Let's be real most masternodes aren't privy to the information about evolution or any other competitive advantage that might come along and have to be kept secret. To be clear Masternodes should still be able to defund each DFO on a monthly basis
Imo each of these groups should be cohesive and submit separate proposals, and the DFOs shouldn't take up more than 70-80%(maybe less) as mastermined said.
It's a big picture idea that would (imo) help Dash tremendously. Figuring out how it could work is definitely worth discussing.
Vedran Yoweri
Active member
that's cool. you obviously know whats going on.
off course not. but i'm part of the dash dao. the "qualified specialist" is not. maybe you really expect mno to give up their control. maybe you should re-think this one more time. there are other folks that don't think outsourcing responsibility is a good idea.
edit add link
Last edited:
Individually Masternodes don't have control that's the beauty of the system... The "control" Masternodes are giving up (they aren't because Core already has this "control") is the ability to make educated decisions in real time through more than just Dash Core in its present state. The good that comes out of this structure he's talking about outweighs the bad imo. Maybe you don't see it and that's ok, but it definitely doesn't mean he's a troll.
TroyDASH
Well-known member
We already outsource responsibility to Dash Core Group. Are you okay with this? Why should the MNOs be okay with acknowledging their obvious technical incompetency and outsourcing granular technical decisions, but not acknowledging their obvious marketing incompetency and outsourcing granular marketing decisions? This proposal is not about outsourcing all decisions, only granular decisions where a professionally trained individual or team is more suited to make them instead of the MNOs, where 99 out of 100 masternode operators do not have extensive professional experience in the area in question.
Some complain that a modest percentage of the MasterNodes vote on proposals. To me, that's a feature, not a drawback. Allow me to explain.
Let's say there are 1,300 MN owners. If the sample is large enough, it always turns into a bell curve distribution. Let's take one attribute as an example, knowledge of developmental psychology. I'm sure, in the left tail, there is some tiny percentage of MN owners that wouldn't have the first clue and maybe can't even pronounce it. And some in the right tail that are top 1 percenters, possibly even working as a developmental physchologist.
The magic happens when you have a decent sized group, more than a couple hundred. No matter what kind of problem you throw at the group, somebody is pretty knowledgeable about whatever you just asked. In fact, several or even many, will know about xy or z. So if there is some proposal that 75% of the Masternodes know shit about, that means 25% actually do know which end is up, and what the important metrics are, and what the right questions to ask are. We have a bunch of experts (at something) that self select to the questions and proposals that they can bring meaningful input to. So if 20 or 30 or 40% vote, that's likely a good thing. I have seen a certain idea floated several times, that we should in some way "make" the MasterNodes vote on every proposal. That is a terrible idea, for reasons that should be obvious now.
Sure, there are "spies and stupids" among the masternodes that try to throw a wrench in the works, but not too many. The process works pretty well, despite the obstacles. There was discussion a while back about putting together a consultant panel, just for the use of the Masternodes. Get a list of useful people and put them on speed dial, so when we (occasionally) need some expert opinion about some exotic topic we really know nothing about,,, hey, we can afford that too.
Let's say there are 1,300 MN owners. If the sample is large enough, it always turns into a bell curve distribution. Let's take one attribute as an example, knowledge of developmental psychology. I'm sure, in the left tail, there is some tiny percentage of MN owners that wouldn't have the first clue and maybe can't even pronounce it. And some in the right tail that are top 1 percenters, possibly even working as a developmental physchologist.
The magic happens when you have a decent sized group, more than a couple hundred. No matter what kind of problem you throw at the group, somebody is pretty knowledgeable about whatever you just asked. In fact, several or even many, will know about xy or z. So if there is some proposal that 75% of the Masternodes know shit about, that means 25% actually do know which end is up, and what the important metrics are, and what the right questions to ask are. We have a bunch of experts (at something) that self select to the questions and proposals that they can bring meaningful input to. So if 20 or 30 or 40% vote, that's likely a good thing. I have seen a certain idea floated several times, that we should in some way "make" the MasterNodes vote on every proposal. That is a terrible idea, for reasons that should be obvious now.
Sure, there are "spies and stupids" among the masternodes that try to throw a wrench in the works, but not too many. The process works pretty well, despite the obstacles. There was discussion a while back about putting together a consultant panel, just for the use of the Masternodes. Get a list of useful people and put them on speed dial, so when we (occasionally) need some expert opinion about some exotic topic we really know nothing about,,, hey, we can afford that too.
Last edited:
I am surprised by some of the comments and also surprised verbal aggression is allowed; it would get the offender banned or at least he would be warned in other forums. Anyway, let me add a loaded question to the discussion:
Who would you rather trust to make decisions on a highly competitive industry and to anticipate market changes?
a) Well-known, highly-paid, professionally trained, experienced executives, directors, managers and team leaders, working under supervision, with support of their technical teams, accountable for their actions, with access to better information about Dash, who also work full-time in the area.
b) Thousands of anonymous individuals who may or may not: be competent, have experience, be accountable, have enough information, and dedicate enough time.
Who would you rather trust to make decisions on a highly competitive industry and to anticipate market changes?
a) Well-known, highly-paid, professionally trained, experienced executives, directors, managers and team leaders, working under supervision, with support of their technical teams, accountable for their actions, with access to better information about Dash, who also work full-time in the area.
b) Thousands of anonymous individuals who may or may not: be competent, have experience, be accountable, have enough information, and dedicate enough time.
@Vedran Yoweri keep it civil please
demo
Well-known member
This is a well known ideological battle that often occurs. For example, who should be allowed to write an encyclopedia, the experts or the people? In practice the answer has been given, and wikipedia rules....
And there is one more reason. Democracy is not a about technological excellence or best practices. Υοu may believe that living in a skyscraper is the perfect choice for the community, and you may are right, but some people prefer to live in a forest hut. Democracy is not about perfection, but about freedom of choice. This is democracy, it is a matter of taste, it is a life style.
I choose b. And if b is not enough, then I choose vote c.
c) Millions of anonymous individuals who may or may not: be competent, have experience, be accountable, have enough information, and dedicate enough time.
But my real vote is neither b nor c. My real vote is conditional :
"b or c, as long as they are allowed to cast conditional votes and vote the numbers."
I hope Dash will develop oneday smart voting contracts, for me to be able to vote that way.
Last edited:
Now we are coming to the core philosophical part of the question - what defines effective governance? We have recently seen the real world results (I'm thinking Brexit here) of casting the widest possible net in a plebiscite or referendum, where the electorate is by no means competent (in the meaning of informed enough) to make decisions at that level. Competence is a scale, not a binary construct. Voting power should therefore also be proportional to the competence of the voter, as determined by some consistent methodology. The current masternode system allows votes based on whether or not the voter feels competent to vote. What @JulioDash has put forward here proposes to increase that competence by shifting the vote to a body with (1) more access to the information required to make an informed decision and (2) with the proven ability (technical/operational/managerial/financial/etc.) to make that decision.
There are many levels of competence, and they pertain to different fields - not all decisions are technical or marketing decisions, and not all people are competent to make technical or marketing decisions. The latest sociological research on this with relevance to blockchain is the implementation of liquid democracy, where variously competent voters engage with the issues within their sphere of ability, understanding and influence. How can Dash take steps in this direction? I would not support delegation of this voting to a central competent authority (Dash Core), but I can see the development of several Core-like entities, each specialising in a certain field and still sharing (possibly privileged) information amongst one another. I believe Cardano is pursuing this approach by forming several for-profit and non-profit entities to distribute power in such a way that no single entity controls everything, but also not so decentralised that the level of information available during decision making is so limited that voters are rendered incompetent of rational voting.
Finally, thanks @JulioDash for starting this discussion - I know you have been working on it for a long time. Discussion at this point is important, but it is controversial so let's keep it civil and avoid ad hominem attacks or premature opinion polling through on-chain proposals...
There are many levels of competence, and they pertain to different fields - not all decisions are technical or marketing decisions, and not all people are competent to make technical or marketing decisions. The latest sociological research on this with relevance to blockchain is the implementation of liquid democracy, where variously competent voters engage with the issues within their sphere of ability, understanding and influence. How can Dash take steps in this direction? I would not support delegation of this voting to a central competent authority (Dash Core), but I can see the development of several Core-like entities, each specialising in a certain field and still sharing (possibly privileged) information amongst one another. I believe Cardano is pursuing this approach by forming several for-profit and non-profit entities to distribute power in such a way that no single entity controls everything, but also not so decentralised that the level of information available during decision making is so limited that voters are rendered incompetent of rational voting.
Finally, thanks @JulioDash for starting this discussion - I know you have been working on it for a long time. Discussion at this point is important, but it is controversial so let's keep it civil and avoid ad hominem attacks or premature opinion polling through on-chain proposals...
demo
Well-known member
Thats not the core philosophical part of the question.
The core philosophical part of the question is "effective_governance VS freedom_of_choice".
Ηumans obviously choose the second, otherwise God would govern and we would be in paradise.
Not to mention of course that we dont know who the God is, and that many humans pretend to be gods.
Vedran Yoweri
Active member
dear @JulioDash , please accept my apologies for the harsh words.
i have come to the conclusion you are right. mr taylor isn't competent and a company is a much better construct than a budget. i've been told 99 out of the 100 mno don't know what their doing so obviously things must change. i wish you good luck in this and hopefully future endeavors.
i have come to the conclusion you are right. mr taylor isn't competent and a company is a much better construct than a budget. i've been told 99 out of the 100 mno don't know what their doing so obviously things must change. i wish you good luck in this and hopefully future endeavors.
First of all, technical note: I'm not sure to what extent I'm in a Core Team, since technically, Dash-Electrum support is funded through a separate Budget proposal, not from the Core's budget.
Second, I doubt that point of view of @JulioDash significantly contradicts any that's going right now.
Yes, there's Core's leadership, both in technical, marketing, legal side is undisputed.
Yet, there are cases where Core Team is not competent (penetrating Ukrainian payment processing market anyone?
or PR in Africa? ) or the team just lacks organizational capacity.
Current setup of the Budgeting System allows to "innovate on the edge" exactly at the points, that are of interest, and yet where regular hierarchical organizational structure would fail or overplan.
Could Core proposals eat 95%+ of the total budget and yet be spent effectively? Might be, but I doubt it.
Could there appear another team that would surpass Core's ability to provide service to the MNO? Might be, but we're still years before this.
Should every MNO be competent in every budgeting decision? Hell no: most of you aren't competent in most of products/services you're buying and interacting daily. Yet, somehow you survive and (I hope) prosper.
It's enough for MNO to feel that they're buying good service from Core and other teams. If owners would be massively wrong, dash price would tank and MN value would be devalued. Otherwise - treat it as an experiment and learn from it.
Finally, are there areas to improve in Budgeting System? Hell yeah.. There's big area for a small-scale projects that could not afford 5DASH proposal fee and don't have many other options. Proposals still are categorized very vaguely and there are no "high level" teams other than Core that would cover either regional projects (South America anyone?) or vertical (payments processing/PoS/accounting/etc?).
Well... just my two duffs
Second, I doubt that point of view of @JulioDash significantly contradicts any that's going right now.
Yes, there's Core's leadership, both in technical, marketing, legal side is undisputed.
Yet, there are cases where Core Team is not competent (penetrating Ukrainian payment processing market anyone?
or PR in Africa? ) or the team just lacks organizational capacity.Current setup of the Budgeting System allows to "innovate on the edge" exactly at the points, that are of interest, and yet where regular hierarchical organizational structure would fail or overplan.
Could Core proposals eat 95%+ of the total budget and yet be spent effectively? Might be, but I doubt it.
Could there appear another team that would surpass Core's ability to provide service to the MNO? Might be, but we're still years before this.
Should every MNO be competent in every budgeting decision? Hell no: most of you aren't competent in most of products/services you're buying and interacting daily. Yet, somehow you survive and (I hope) prosper.
It's enough for MNO to feel that they're buying good service from Core and other teams. If owners would be massively wrong, dash price would tank and MN value would be devalued. Otherwise - treat it as an experiment and learn from it.
Finally, are there areas to improve in Budgeting System? Hell yeah.. There's big area for a small-scale projects that could not afford 5DASH proposal fee and don't have many other options. Proposals still are categorized very vaguely and there are no "high level" teams other than Core that would cover either regional projects (South America anyone?) or vertical (payments processing/PoS/accounting/etc?).
Well... just my two duffs
@strophy Brexit was, indeed, the correct outcome. The public was rejecting policy and decision making from a body outside of their own country, to whom they could not even put a name to. In contrast, both before and after the vote, lamestream media entered into a dirty underhanded campaign of fake news and smear. This is a fitting analogy of why MNOs should not forfeit their votes; it's not so much a question of competence to vote, but rather a question of how corruption begins.
As stated above, but repeated here as it's highly relevant; in a criminal court, there is a responsibility for both the prosecution and defense to explain things in a way that 12 ordinary people can comprehend, well enough to make an informed decision. Jurors are almost always confronted with technical details e.g. DNA, fingerprints, blood splash patterns etc. Yes, there are people that believe Jurors should be technically qualified, and no doubt the OP would be one of them.. but we have the current system because, again, questions of possible corruption sit at the heart of such decisions.
If we consider SegWit as an example - something that is technical in nature - it is absolutely Core's responsibility to pass enough information that MNOs can decide. Similarly, I believe Duffield did make a clear case when he proposed a 2MB block. Or should we reject that overwhelming outcome?
As stated above, but repeated here as it's highly relevant; in a criminal court, there is a responsibility for both the prosecution and defense to explain things in a way that 12 ordinary people can comprehend, well enough to make an informed decision. Jurors are almost always confronted with technical details e.g. DNA, fingerprints, blood splash patterns etc. Yes, there are people that believe Jurors should be technically qualified, and no doubt the OP would be one of them.. but we have the current system because, again, questions of possible corruption sit at the heart of such decisions.
If we consider SegWit as an example - something that is technical in nature - it is absolutely Core's responsibility to pass enough information that MNOs can decide. Similarly, I believe Duffield did make a clear case when he proposed a 2MB block. Or should we reject that overwhelming outcome?
We do trust Core to make certain determinations that bodes well for the brand and future of Dash, but your question or overly strong appeal to authority is frankly alarming. Option A combined with your question has strong hints of centralizations which can be potentially co-opted.