That was not at all obvious without reading every line of the previous posts. Would it have been so hard to point that out to me 48 hours ago? But thanks for pointing it out now.
Dash Incubator: Vote on Appointment of new Proposal Owner
- Thread starter AndyDark
- Start date
That was not at all obvious without reading every line of the previous posts. Would it have been so hard to point that out to me 48 hours ago? But thanks for pointing it out now.
vazaki3
Well-known member
The rules of incubator may be considered by you as pretty clear, but the question is, should the admins of incubator be forced to follow your rules?
Isn't better for them to create new rules or amend the existing ones, create rules without flaws and opacities, create rules that are clearly decentralized or clearly centralized and certainly not in the twilight zone of decentralization? Isn't better for them to create new rules that do not include a cabal structure that may end working against the dash network's benefits?
Why you want to bind them all under your rules?
Last edited:
qwizzie
Well-known member
Above does not matter, it does not matter if there are MNO's in here or just Dash community members, if there is consensus among MNO's or not. You created a thread on this public Dash forum and titled it 'Dash Incubator : Vote on Appointment of new Proposal Owner' and somehow you expected this to have only Dash Incubator Admins voting and discussing it ?
That clashes with the whole notion of having a public forum in the first place. A public forum where everyone is free to discuss what they want to discuss. As long as they abide by the forum rules of course.
Last edited:
AndyDark
Well-known member
As I said before, obviously anyone can post here. Where that's going to become an issue is if the volume of posts is people not in Incubator because then how can Admins have a discussion here together - the whole point is here we are trying to keep Incubator together / give Admins a chance to air things publicly and resolve (either the vote or maybe something else they can negotiate) after this apparently failed internally after 9 months (which I wasn't party to apart from a single call I was asked to join as I already mentioned).
Of course some posts outside of that can help to keep the process fair or flesh out the arguments / provide some perspective (which is why I posted it here in the first place) - but if you read some of the posts e.g. xkcd rambling on about "ok who pissed Rion off and whats the point of decentralization anyway" with zero knowledge on Incubator / the process, how is this going to be conducive to trying to resolve this situation? Obviously they can do that, its just probably going to hurt this process so i'm asking that they don't, that's all.
"Sorry can you verify your claim that there are MNOs here?"
I own masternodes. I can send you the secret handshake if you like. If you spent any significant time in the MN channel on Discord, that would be fairly obvious.
XKCD owns masternodes, everybody and his brother knows that, or so I thought. Plus his green tag verifies that. But apparently you are not impressed by the green tag either.
Agnew has the keys to vote with masternodes which is just as good.
It's mostly Masternodes that read and comment over on DashCentral. That's how they are getting directed here.
"And lets say you can and they were, what does that actually mean? How would we know that if there were MNOs here, they represent consensus of the MNO network?"
But as you point out, perhaps ^^^ that is the bigger and more interesting question. Currently, our best possible method of determining consensus among the Masternode community is through a proposal on Dash Central. Who is responsible for totally screwing the pooch on that front?????????? Again, not a rhetorical question. Please answer it. Do you know the consensus of the Masternode community at this moment? Now that it has become a public discussion, why does your voice count more that that of a Masternode voice, or anybody in the Dash community for that matter. The Masternode community did not make this public.
For clarity, this is just my response as a Masternode owner.
I own masternodes. I can send you the secret handshake if you like. If you spent any significant time in the MN channel on Discord, that would be fairly obvious.
XKCD owns masternodes, everybody and his brother knows that, or so I thought. Plus his green tag verifies that. But apparently you are not impressed by the green tag either.
Agnew has the keys to vote with masternodes which is just as good.
It's mostly Masternodes that read and comment over on DashCentral. That's how they are getting directed here.
"And lets say you can and they were, what does that actually mean? How would we know that if there were MNOs here, they represent consensus of the MNO network?"
But as you point out, perhaps ^^^ that is the bigger and more interesting question. Currently, our best possible method of determining consensus among the Masternode community is through a proposal on Dash Central. Who is responsible for totally screwing the pooch on that front?????????? Again, not a rhetorical question. Please answer it. Do you know the consensus of the Masternode community at this moment? Now that it has become a public discussion, why does your voice count more that that of a Masternode voice, or anybody in the Dash community for that matter. The Masternode community did not make this public.
For clarity, this is just my response as a Masternode owner.
AndyDark
Well-known member
Sorry pretty much no idea what most of that is talking about...and some non-consensus, trusted MN group wouldn't be something I would ever put my reputation behind engaging privately with. In terms of why does my voice count... i'm not giving my voice, i'm trying to moderate a vote between Admins on this thread and hopefully avert serious issues for Incubator (which I founded and wrote the Rules for btw).
qwizzie
Well-known member
From the now withdrawn Dash Incubator budget proposal :
So the Incubator Governance committee (those specific 5 members) are getting a commission of up to 20% of their budget ?
Interesting.. nothing more, nothing less .. just interesting.
Now i am really curious what Rion's Dash Incubator updated budget proposal text will state. I guess we will find outtomorrow in 2 hours.
So the Incubator Governance committee (those specific 5 members) are getting a commission of up to 20% of their budget ?
Interesting.. nothing more, nothing less .. just interesting.
Now i am really curious what Rion's Dash Incubator updated budget proposal text will state. I guess we will find out
Last edited:
vazaki3
Well-known member
"1. Incubator Governance (appointing or removing Admins, updating Incubator Rules, Voting) - originally shared by all Admins, now falls under the remit of the following Incubator Governance committee:
- Cloudwheels
- Dashameter
- Rion
- Sam Kirby
- Spectaprod
- Proposal creation & submission
- Holding & moving funds
- Strategic management
- Infrastructure management
The following extract from the last Proposal shows how we’ve progressed against the internal changes listed as our Q2 top Priority:
-“Create a formal committee consisting of current admins to govern major decision making in the Incubator through explicit, public voting. For example, the committee would vote on rule changes, appointment and removal of admins, network proposal content, admin budget requests, etc).” Complete - see 2.3.1 above
-“Give admins the choice to move into a role with increased responsibility and reward potential. This would involve some admins taking personal ownership over a specific monthly budget and reporting on how the budget was used each quarter. Budget requests come from the incubator general fund and need approval from the committee (e.g. by a simple majority of the voting committee). Admin reports and budget requests are then collected and used to form the main Incubator proposal to the network.” Complete - individual reports to form the basis of the next proposal
-“In exchange for taking on extra responsibility, which should increase the quality of output, these admins are awarded with a commission of up to 20% of their budget. This reward is paid with the tasks they approve, just like the existing 10-15% commission that this would replace. These admins may choose to employ a ‘normal’ admin (who isn’t personally responsible for a budget) for day-to-day tasks, which they would pay from their 20%).” Complete - effective 01 AUG"
In short, at 1 august 2022, five incubator admins will exclude all the rest incubator admins from deciding anything, and they will get 20% reward for doing that.
This is what a dog master named @Sam Kirby (a person who joined this forum Jun 14, 2022) suggests...
Decentralization, my ass!!!!
Last edited:
AndyDark
Well-known member
I've not actually read that... but from experience with people new to the Incubator model and the questions that typically come up...
Incubator is a purely mercantile setup whereby every action is incentivized to produce output. There's no permanent positions / employment / contracts, just all work is done out of choice through provision of incentives and microincentives where an Admin negotiates a price for Tasks (based on urgency/importance/skill-supply) with contributors who Claim the Output and do or don't get the reward depending on if they met the criteria.
So normally in an IT org you will have high % of spend on non-devs (e.g. 30%-60%) on product management, ownership, higher level management etc, Incubator just uses 2 tiers of Admins who work purely for commission. Initially it was 10% but it was upped to 15% u-bound based on an algo (based on some admins not earning enough and leaving). So 20% is still within what I would call reasonable. Note some of the criticism of Incubator was that prices / commission were too high and Admins would just game themselves... actually when you have a marketplace where all work/prices/info are fully public, it becomes highly competitive... any gaming of the system becomes apparent pretty quick and other Admins will intervene (as you can see with this thread itself Admins tend to want to police each other).
Last edited:
vazaki3
Well-known member
This is not just gaming the system. This is a vulgar coup of five admins against the rest ones!
And this coup was allowed to be proposed (and almost passed ?) due to your flawed incubator rules.
50% agree, it is not similar to 50% dont object! An admin may have heard nothing about an upcoming change, and some others may claim that he does not object! Especially in case the upcoming change refers to the removal of this deaf admin, because he abstains from the money feast of the internal cabal.
An obviously flawed rule, one rule to ring them all!
Last edited:
AndyDark
Well-known member
no it's fine, i'm sure many of use here are MNO actually. Just making the point that you know partial MNO opinions don't really count it's only when we can take consensus we can based things on it. Anyway no worries.
vazaki3
Well-known member
@xkcd in mnowatch we have this ---> DASH Proposal Owners (mnowatch.org)
Could we create smth similar for the dash incubator expenses, based on this https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mhXlo4ylqWLLSYN4MGiLWlp7Gq3jrsDt0kB701dwMNU ?
It would be intersting to spot not only those who earned money from incubator, but also those who have been banned from the structure and have been denied access to the honey/money. I am certainly one of them, and I wonder whether I am the only one. In the dash budget system, we know all the rejected ones (sort by "amount paid"). In dash incubator there is not any transparent report regarding the rejected ones (rejected admins, rejected workers, rejected developers etc) so we have to dig a lot to find out the truth.
Could we create smth similar for the dash incubator expenses, based on this https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mhXlo4ylqWLLSYN4MGiLWlp7Gq3jrsDt0kB701dwMNU ?
It would be intersting to spot not only those who earned money from incubator, but also those who have been banned from the structure and have been denied access to the honey/money. I am certainly one of them, and I wonder whether I am the only one. In the dash budget system, we know all the rejected ones (sort by "amount paid"). In dash incubator there is not any transparent report regarding the rejected ones (rejected admins, rejected workers, rejected developers etc) so we have to dig a lot to find out the truth.
Last edited:
It is worthwhile to say this out loud.
Based on voting history the ample majority of Masternodes like the idea and the results of the Incubator to date. Would they like it more if Incubator could demonstrate more value/results going forward? Sure, who wouldn't? But that's not the main driver in the current conversation.
My impression of the MN community at the moment is that if Ryan and Andy and the other Incubator participants came out with a joint statement before voting ends, that they will resolve the current impasse internally before the next budget cycle, the current prop would have the best possible chance of passing.
That's just the informed opinion of one Masternode owner. I've been wrong before. Feel free to ignore my advise.
Isn't it worth trying though?
Based on voting history the ample majority of Masternodes like the idea and the results of the Incubator to date. Would they like it more if Incubator could demonstrate more value/results going forward? Sure, who wouldn't? But that's not the main driver in the current conversation.
My impression of the MN community at the moment is that if Ryan and Andy and the other Incubator participants came out with a joint statement before voting ends, that they will resolve the current impasse internally before the next budget cycle, the current prop would have the best possible chance of passing.
That's just the informed opinion of one Masternode owner. I've been wrong before. Feel free to ignore my advise.
Isn't it worth trying though?
In a Treasury where funding depends on a Supermajority of Yes votes, minority opinions matter, and I find your tone
dismissive, voters who have weighed in here would like some clarity and there is very little time left in the cycle to do that.
Continuing this argumentative direction without addressing voter concerns risks the Incubator losing funding this cycle.
Sam Kirby
New member
Thanks for highlighting these points. The withdrawn Proposal highlights a set of changes agreed 4 months before that were communicated in part to the Network in the Q2 Proposal."1. Incubator Governance (appointing or removing Admins, updating Incubator Rules, Voting) - originally shared by all Admins, now falls under the remit of the following Incubator Governance committee:
2. Proposal Owner - specified under our rules as a temporary role, the following responsabilities are now shared by the Governance committee (above).
- Cloudwheels
- Dashameter
- Rion
- Sam Kirby
- Spectaprod
These changes allow for greater ownership and accountability of key elements of budget spend, governance and Proposal deliverables which I'll expand on in later sections.
- Proposal creation & submission
- Holding & moving funds
- Strategic management
- Infrastructure management
The following extract from the last Proposal shows how we’ve progressed against the internal changes listed as our Q2 top Priority:
-“Create a formal committee consisting of current admins to govern major decision making in the Incubator through explicit, public voting. For example, the committee would vote on rule changes, appointment and removal of admins, network proposal content, admin budget requests, etc).” Complete - see 2.3.1 above
-“Give admins the choice to move into a role with increased responsibility and reward potential. This would involve some admins taking personal ownership over a specific monthly budget and reporting on how the budget was used each quarter. Budget requests come from the incubator general fund and need approval from the committee (e.g. by a simple majority of the voting committee). Admin reports and budget requests are then collected and used to form the main Incubator proposal to the network.” Complete - individual reports to form the basis of the next proposal
-“In exchange for taking on extra responsibility, which should increase the quality of output, these admins are awarded with a commission of up to 20% of their budget. This reward is paid with the tasks they approve, just like the existing 10-15% commission that this would replace. These admins may choose to employ a ‘normal’ admin (who isn’t personally responsible for a budget) for day-to-day tasks, which they would pay from their 20%).” Complete - effective 01 AUG"
In short, at 1 august 2022, five incubator admins will exclude all the rest incubator admins from deciding anything, and they will get 20% reward for doing that.
This is what a dog master named @Sam Kirby (a person who joined this forum Jun 14, 2022) suggests...
Decentralization, my ass!!!!
These changes were agreed during 'compromise' calls after voting was held on Proposals submitted internally by Rion and I - although my proposal was essentially just this 1 requirment:
1.Break down the many changes listed in Rions proposal and vote on them seperately.
20% commision is not a change I am/was ever in favour of. I prefer a smaller commision and tasks for the extra responsibilities.
A governance committee was a change I accepted and have no issue with at this time.
Sam Kirby
New member
My internal Proposal (mentioned above) was written because I objected to large far-reaching changes being suggested for voting in one hit. These changes included a single centralised figure with super veto rights - responsible for approving funds that alllow Admins to function. These seemed in contrast to the direction our rules say we should be moving in.
The withdrawn Network Proposal shows the changes we agreed as a compromise to the results of this voting.
Last edited:
Also, note, the Forum has some vocal voters that have weighed in, but for each MNO or delegate that has asked for
some clarity, there are several more reading this thread as lurkers.
some clarity, there are several more reading this thread as lurkers.
vazaki3
Well-known member
The question is, did the rest admins (@AshFrancis , @Hilawe , @Ivan Shumkov , @Pasta , @QuantumExplorer , @wizlee ) agreed that from now on only 5 admins (Cloudwheels, Dashameter, Rion, Sam Kirby, Spectaprod) will govern incubator?
Did the five of you informed the rest six admins about the changes? Did the rest six admins voluntarily withdraw from their government rights and from their voting rights?
Could you give us the names of the admins that voted in favor of the five-member governance committee? Being able to vote for the changing of the rules (or to vote in order to define the electorate that governs) it is a huge power and I really wonder whether the aforementioned six admins really wanted to give up their power.
Last edited: