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

DashCentral - voting lists


Active member
Hey guys,

the amount of proposals is growing to a number (27 this month), that is too high for a regular masternode owner to do informed decisions and voting on.

I thought about adding a "voting list" feature to DashCentral, that allows single DashCentral users to create a voting list. e.g.

Rango's voting list for April:
Proposal 1: yes
Proposal 2: yes
Proposal 3: abstain

Masternode owners will choose a voting list (as you choose a political party now to perform all detail decisions for you) and click on "Vote according to voting list X".

What do you think?

I'm not sure... this could lead to herd voting. I believe there is already some of that: when a proposal gets some early approval usually the next votes maintain that trend. Making it even easier can end up in masternodes reading nothing. I prefer that masternodes don't vote because they don't know than them voting blindly.

If anything, I would prefer voluntary delegation to specific people, by areas of expertise. And depending on how it is implemented I'd be wary too.
The key phrase above in rango's post is "regular masternode owner". Is a regular owner somebody who just sits by and passively invests 1000 Dash and nothing else? I've said it before and here it goes again: It is the RESPONSIBILITY of masternode owners to research the submitted proposals and vote on them. Dash has a decentralized structure, do we want to centralize it by allowing "lazy nodes"?
I've said it before and here it goes again: It is the RESPONSIBILITY of masternode owners to research the submitted proposals and vote on them.

Since there are no technical means to put the responsibility to "vote responsibly" on MNO's, there are no responsibility for not voting or doing it frivolously.

If the protocol would start to punish for not voting, not "doing responsible voting", then quite few masternode owners will quit and sell out.
Nodes are already punished for voting irresponsibly when Dash is worth less than it would otherwise (if their choice passes). That being said, I wouldn't use anyone's list. I'm pretty sure there is no MNO that shares my opinions on every possible subject.

However, it could see that an overlooked proposal could get a second glance it there was a "Endorsed by Such-and-such" mark on it, or a proposal that seems good get a more thorough evaluation if was "Opposed by Such-and-such". If you could then pick those persons whose opinions you value, they would be a pretty good indicator when you are about to judge the proposal for yourself.
I would be in favor of a system / confirmation list that just verify some basic information, so masternode owners know that budget proposal is legit.
Sort of a background check on the budget proposal initiator.

The actual voting i would still like to keep in control by myself, even if that means having to put some of my own time into reading the budget proposals
and following the comments.

I could see myself voting in a different way in the future when there is a large increase of budget proposals, namely i would be voting to abstain untill it gets clear that
budget proposal is legit. Some sort of background verification system / legit confirmation list would help in such situation.
Last edited:
I think this is being over thought. You are trying to fix something that isn't. Token because you see a slight inefficiency. A masternode owner is making 10k a year, which is enough incentive for him/her to take a minute and read 27 proposals.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are no "regular" masternode owners. We are all special and gifted and motivated in our own unique way. I would leave the system as it stands. And certainly, there are MN owners who watch, but don't vote b/c they feel things are well in hand and operating fine. But if they see something going wrong, they will get involved as needed. I think the opportunity for discussion and voting is adequate and working as intended.
Sorry for the delayed response, guys.

@fernando "Herd voting MNOs reading nothing" If proposal number increases, nobody will be able to read through all (100+) proposals. We need to have a system in place to solve this problem. Representative democracy is one solution.

@oaxaca Repeating, that MNOs should be responsible for the investment does not change reality. People are lazy. Only 10-15% vote.

@akhavr Core implementation (punish non voting MNOs) would be great, but is technically not feasable. There is no way to determine wether a MNO votes responsible or not. People would just run a script voting yes on everything, to keep on getting earnings while doing nothing.

@lynx I agree with you. But, at 100+ proposals you won't be able to vote manually on each one.

@qwizzie I agree with you. But background verification or voting list by a well known community member are compareable.

@DashEcon101 I am not trying to fix a problem that is not existent. I am going to fix a problem before it's impairing DASH. I don't see a solution in your post, how to solve voting on 100+ proposals. The argument that MNOs eraning 10k "should" vote is not matching voting reality now and will not in the future.

@solarguy I agree. There are a bunch of MNOs in the background that will get involved, if proposals go into the wrong direction.


For now i see that "voting lists" / "representative democracy" / "proposal due-diligence by well known community members" is the only solution on the table to tackle 100+ proposals in the future.
You don't need to vote on each and every proposal. Everyone can pick a few and vote on them YES/NO, and then review those that are closer to getting funded.

PS: This way assures that a bad proposal won't pass, but maybe a good proposal will go unnoticed. That's why I said that someone endorsing a proposal would be nice. It's like "hey, I think this one is good, please review it".
Masternode owners will choose a voting list (as you choose a political party now to perform all detail decisions for you) and click on "Vote according to voting list X".
Just throwing out an idea. If something like this does happen I would like to see "vote according to voting list X" optional. It should mainly be a guide to gauge where others (groups) in the community stand on any given proposal. Groups that review proposals will naturally form IMO (whether they hold Masternodes, shares, or just interested in Dash).

Let's get hypothetical and say that this was implemented.

A few reputable members, or groups of members, spend a LOT of time reviewing proposals by the time there are 100+ per month. We would have a signed and verified page that shows how the person, or group, voted for each proposal as they happen. A short description or why they voted. A comment section to explain reasoning and discuss with others who are looking to gain perspective from other MN owners and community contributors.

I for one would love to gain additional insight as new groups with different ideologies form in Dash as they have in BTC. Not everyone wants the same thing from cryptocurrency.

I also think this would be a valuable way that a proposal owner could track down a multiple masternode owner and get a signed, verified opinion. It would also be easier to track down masternode owners than forums, and less cluttered than dashcentral comments section for the general public.

EDIT: Perhaps this should be a separate service from dashcentral or at least different webpage so one person or group cannot dominate the "top search result" for users or groups on the same website as the proposals, proposal information, and voting ability.
Last edited:
I would support it if you could manually override votes in the List you disagree with.

In the long term, I would prefer a protocol level implementation of liquid democracy.
I've been saying for quite some time now that eventually some sort of (voluntary!) representative voting system will emerge. Lists like @rango suggests would be interesting. I could also see self-appointed proposal reviewers emerging (kind of like analysts at investment firms). In a more extreme case, I could see some masternode owners just giving out their mnprivkey to a third-party to vote for them.

As a historian, I can tell you that when true democracy was tried in Athens, it didn't ultimately work out. There are simply too many things to review and research, and direct democratic voting doesn't work on a governmental level. As the system draws more and more proposals, some sort of delegation or "following" is almost certainly going to happen. Right now we have a $400k or so monthly budget. In five years, it could easily be an $8 million monthly budget. I'm thinking there will be LOTS of proposals then =)