• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Change Block Reward % from 45/45/10 to 42.5/42.5/15

Which block reward do you favor for Dash?

  • Current: 45% Miners / 45% Masternodes / 10% Treasury

    Votes: 16 72.7%

  • Proposed: 42.5% Miners / 42.5% Masternodes / 15% Treasury

    Votes: 6 27.3%
  • Total voters
    22
Nuancer

Nuancer

Member
As the Dash DAO continues to scale up in time for Evolution, we are beginning to see the Dash Treasury full of competitive proposals, many of which are highly popular and would add value to the Dash Network, but will not be implemented due to lack of funds. Instead of funding these value-adding proposals, we currently choose to allocate a large amount of funding to the Dash miners and masternodes. I believe we can shift a small part of this funding to the DAO to increase its effectiveness while still retaining the services of miners and masternodes.

The quick and easy fix is to increase the Dash Treasury allocation by 50%, bringing its share from 10% to 15%. I propose to shift 2.5% of the allocation from both the Miners and Masternodes in this effort, as not to target either group. Rather, everybody shares in recognizing the valuable opportunities that we need to fund to maximize the effectiveness of Dash.

If we do nothing, we will see multiple proposal owners that have >75% yes votes (active voters) lose their entire 5 Dash and become discouraged.

Here is how I look at the options:

Proposed: 42.5% Miners / 42.5% Masternodes / 15% Treasury
- Easy code change that can be implemented quickly
- The Dash network can do more things with additional funding to accelerate the impact of the Dash DAO
- Miners will likely continue to mine Dash despite the small loss of reward
- Masternodes will likely continue operating despite the small loss of reward

Current: 45% Miners / 45% Masternodes / 10% Treasury
- People like continuity (change is scary)
- Many proposal owners with positive net votes proposals will not get funded, may get discouraged, and lose their 5 Dash despite proposing something that the majority of active voters would like to fund
- Miners are happy they don't lose any reward
- Masternodes are happy they don't lose any reward
 
We need to make smarter decisions about proposals which will generate actual value to the network. Price “should” rise from these decisions and from that more budget becomes available.

Don’t change the protocol. Increase useage and adoption instead.
 
Here is an alternative way to think about it: Imagine if the Dash DAO had 100% of the budget. Then a group of Masternodes put up a proposal asking for 45% of it, and then a group of Miners put up a proposal asking for 45% of it. Would those proposals pass easily?

The miners and masternodes should be thought of as part of the budget. We make that allocation decision every voting cycle.

We currently spend about 20x on mining (security) as we do on Dash Core proposals. Is this the most efficient way to allocate network funds?
We also spend about 10x on mining (security) as we do on all marketing proposals combined. This is definitely not how efficient organizations/networks are run.
 
joemoraca said:
The miners and masternode owners are doing work for their portion of the block rewards. I agree with @Stealth923
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that miners and masternodes are providing valuable services for the Dash network. However, there are also other services that the network could benefit from that are not being funded. Do you think that miners and masternodes will stop providing their services if they get paid slightly less? I believe they will continue providing their services while also allowing additional contractors to be funded.
 
Last edited:
the prices are down and yes the budget is tighter
nobody is planning to change anything on protocols lever
doing that would be a “last stand/change” if there are serious issues in the network
but
there aren’t !
we can not adjust and change protocol for any change in pricing - these things have to run their cause - as they are
we are pretty much where we were 6 month ago (price wise) - nothing changed
 
What if MNO's decided to only fund proposals that:

A.) get dash into more people's hands

B.) create more ways to spend dash

That would free up plenty of room in the budget. It would also force all proposal owners to deeply consider how they are achieving one of these goals to make sure the network is benefitting.

We need to increase circulation (number of people who have dash to spend) and ways to spend (merchants, goods, services, etc). Our path to success is really this simple folks.

Dash's treasury, properly allocated, should guarantee that every month more people have dash and more people are spending dash.
 
Last edited:
Nuancer said:
If we do nothing, we will see multiple proposal owners that have >75% yes votes (active voters) lose their entire 5 Dash and become discouraged.
Click to expand...
This may be true, but I think it will still be true even if we implement this proposed change.

More available budget --> potential proposal owners think they have a better chance of being funded --> more proposals --> we will see proposal owners that have >75% yes votes and lose their entire 5 Dash and become discouraged.

In the long term I think it will be more and more common for there to be proposals with positive support but that don't fit in the budget. It's unfortunate that people may get discouraged, but at the same time that is the purpose of the fee.
That being said, if I were to have us do Dash over again from the beginning, I think that something like 40/40/20 would be preferable to 45/45/10. If the core team was willing to do it I wouldn't be opposed, but only if it didn't interfere with our other priorities.
 
TroyDASH said:
That being said, if I were to have us do Dash over again from the beginning, I think that something like 40/40/20 would be preferable to 45/45/10. If the core team was willing to do it I wouldn't be opposed, but only if it didn't interfere with our other priorities.
Click to expand...

Let @UdjinM6 tell us how difficult is this number to change (in code terms).
If it is feasible in terms of code, then it is not a technical problem, but rather a governance decision.
If I were a masternode, I would vote 39/39/22.
 
Last edited:
The purpose of the 5 Dash proposal fee is to prevent spam and poor-quality proposals. This is easily accomplished by not refunding the 5 Dash for proposals that do not achieve net positive votes.

Our current system is more akin to gambling, especially for smaller proposals that may be highly effective. Even if a proposal owner has a great idea and submits a high quality proposal, they must gamble that they can win a popularity contest and win about 80% yes votes in order to get funded, or they lose 5 Dash. I believe the Dash network should automatically reimburse the 5 Dash for all net-positive proposals and encourage the proposal owner to try again the next cycle. My understanding is that this is a more difficult change to implement, hence my current suggestion to increase the Dash Treasury allocation.

If we change the allocation to 15% for the Treasury, Dash will be able to fund additional proposals while retaining the services of miners and masternodes.
 
Last edited:
I voted no on this... And as mentioned yesterday on discord I would even vote for less. Dash is a Money, a store of value, a medium of exchange and record if a count... Funds fom the treasury should be used for funding development, infrastructure and logistics ... Not social programs...dash is not a welfare provider.
 
bigrcanada said:
I voted no on this... And as mentioned yesterday on discord I would even vote for less. Dash is a Money, a store of value, a medium of exchange and record if a count... Funds fom the treasury should be used for funding development, infrastructure and logistics ... Not social programs...dash is not a welfare provider.
Click to expand...

An increased treasury cannot only be used for charities. It can be used for artillery and weapons too. And the most important weapon is faith and fairness. You have already mined the 2/3 of dash coins, and the future dash generations will not have faith on you, unless you give them back what you owe to them.
 
@Nuancer @Stealth923 @TroyDASH @bigrcanada @joemoraca @tungfa

I seem to getting a little unpopular but here is the truth if anyone is interested.

It is not that we have less money available.
We are just wasting most of our money on cost ineffective, bloated and senseless proposals like

1. Ben Swann 800 ( How does A logo in some random video help adoption? )
2. Feedbands (Again Aimless advertising) 500
3. Dach Embassy ( Where we are funding EU taxes and then some more EU taxes) 438
4. Strike Social (Some more aimless advertising 500 + 500(thankfully rejected)
5. Assorted Conferences ( Echo chambers. Money wasted on travel, hotels, smugness and food. ) 1500

More than 50% of the treasury budget is being wasted or has been wasted on dumb ideas like above.
History will judge us harshly for being unwise with funds.

Most of these proposals leech treasury budgets for months on end and deliver nothing except
I understand I am not winning any popularity contests by saying this.

It is the smaller proposals that are actually delivering any kind of ROI.
The people working on adoption, small venezuela proposals, one on remittances, education ones, @ec1warc1 's dash.red.

Nobody should get more than 150 dash for 3/4 months unless there is spectacular exception, so we can fund 50 proposals a month.
Adoption projects should get 10 times more priority than sponsoring stuff, aimless advertising or conferences.

My 2 duffs.
Argon31
 
Nuancer said:
Our current system is more akin to gambling, especially for smaller proposals that may be highly effective. Even if a proposal owner has a great idea and submits a high quality proposal, they must gamble that they can win a popularity contest and win about 80% yes votes in order to get funded, or they lose 5 Dash. I believe the Dash network should automatically reimburse the 5 Dash for all net-positive proposals and encourage the proposal owner to try again the next cycle. My understanding is that this is a more difficult change to implement, hence my current suggestion to increase the Dash Treasury allocation.
Click to expand...

The proposal fee is to discourage wasteful or spam proposals, not to punish good proposals that don't quite make it.
The system should encourage continued participation. Refunding net positive proposals may not be the way to go but perhaps allowing those proposals that didn't quite make it in one cycle a second chance to improve their proposal without having to pay another proposal fee makes sense to encourage continued participation.
I don't think this should be available to any net positive proposal that didn't make it, but set a bar for those proposals that only just miss out on achieving the 10% requirement. Maybe 5% and above.
However, the argument might be that proposal owners already get that chance to improve their proposal during the voting process. This is true but like I said proposal fees are to discourage wasteful and spam proposals not punish those projects that are positive for Dash. M2D
 
I really think the allocations are fine the way they are. We already sap more from the miners than most other coins, we don't need to take any more. How much room we have in terms of treasury funds is more a question of the price of Dash than the percentage allocation. Perhaps we can revisit this as we move toward Collateralized Mining or what have you in the future.
 
demo said:
An increased treasury cannot only be used for charities. It can be used for artillery and weapons too. And the most important weapon is faith and fairness. You have already mined the 2/3 of dash coins, and the future dash generations will not have faith on you, unless you give them back what you owe to them.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what you are going on here about...A) Future dash generations and faith have what to do with this project?!?. B) I don't owe nor anyone else here owes anybody anything. I really detest socialism, it was and will always be a failed experiment...DASH is a medium of exchange, a record of account and a store of value, no more no less...not a wealth redistribution experiment. Of course...you more then welcome to trade in sea shells and other shiny bobbles and redistribute that around so that everyone has equal amounts of bobbles. ;) LOL
 
If we monkey with the fundamental architecture of Dash, like changing the earnings split, this will cause significant loss of confidence in Dash, and a corresponding loss in value.

Everybody loses. As noted above, this would be a last ditch effort at best.
 
I dont think mining rewards should be squeezed further with the decline in price.
I agree with @bhkien . There are very few good proposals.

Most of them are sponsorships, digital ads, video sponsorships and MMA fights. Not useful spends

I think we need to invest more in promoting use cases like remittances, booking airtickets, online freelancing, paying for digital products.
 
If you want a treasury with more allocation, use Smart Cash. And look at the problems it caused them.

I would not change the allocation, it would just magnify the result of poor decisions. Let the proposal owners fight it out, the limitation will give us better fighters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top