Governance question?

[InTheWoods]

raganius

No, I don't see your point. Not sure you see mine.

Check the Lite Nodes thread. Lite Nodes could be like mini masternodes with lower requirement. They will also be compensated cos they provide a service as well but also get voting rights. No one is talking about giving your precious away to the masses. If fractional voting is implemented, Litenodes could be given say 1/10 for a vote or 1/100 of a vote.

 

[raganius]

raganius

No, I don't see your point. Not sure you see mine.

Check the Lite Nodes thread. Lite Nodes could be like mini masternodes with lower requirement. They will also be compensated cos they provide a service as well but also get voting rights. No one is talking about giving your precious away to the masses.

As long as:

• The network really needs the feature (maybe in a future situation);
• The micro-nodes comply with their expected duties.

All right for me. What I am against is a welfare scheme created to "please" small stakeholders, with no practical and tangible benefits to the whole network.

 

[SnowHater]

Ok, as I said, I understand your feelings towards how it works. And I might be alone here, but to be honest, I se no problem with the "rich getting richer" idea, especially because, as I have said elsewhere, the cryptocurrencies are not equal wealth distribution devices. I doubt a serious investor will accept to participate in a project that will (instead og making him wealthier) divide his money with everyone around.... For that we already have the State... see my point?

I thought that our discussion wasn't about wealth redistribution but about decisions making redistribution.

 

[raganius]

I thought that our discussion wasn't about wealth redistribution but about decisions making redistribution.

As I said above, all players participating in the DASH network have already got their specific voting mechanism. cf. my previous posts.

 

[InTheWoods]

I thought that our discussion wasn't about wealth redistribution but about decisions making redistribution.

With fractional voting you won't need to do any redistribution. If say a Lite Node has 1/100 the voting power of a masternode.

 

[SnowHater]

I like the idea of fractional voting. But not Lite Nodes)). However if there is not any other way to do that, then OK)

 

[InTheWoods]

raganius

Yes, Lite Nodes could take on some of the burden from Masternodes and provide useful service. After Evolution the requirements for a Masternode will be quite high. It would be difficult for example to run nodes from Pi2 computers due to the high requirements but these would be perfect as Lite Nodes. It's a win win in many areas. System gets more decentralized, more node distribution, more inclusion, bigger community and DASH won't look stupid by claiming it has an inclusive bottom up decentralized governance.

 

[raganius]

raganius

Yes, Lite Nodes could take on some of the burden from Masternodes and provide useful service. After Evolution the requirements for a Masternode will be quite high. It would be difficult for example to run nodes from Pi2 computers due to the high requirements but these would be perfect as Lite Nodes. It's a win win in many areas. System gets more decentralized, more node distribution, more inclusion, bigger community and DASH won't look stupid by claiming it has an inclusive bottom up decentralized governance.

If that's the case, it would be great.

 

[SnowHater]

So, summing up my thoughts I've come up with this draft. Keep in mind that I'm not good with english)

Adding feature of fractional voting for all users who locks somehow(?) their DASH in collateral for a let's say a month

PROS:
1) DASH will be the first cryptocurrency which supports direct decentralized governance and budgeting by all its users. Ultimate inclusion, participation and addiction (like drugs :smile. This can lead to huge resonance in media.
2) It incentivises new users to come in the network (to buy DASH) and that leads to marketcap go up. USD Investements and rewards of masternodes, miners and developers goes up.
3) DASH developers now better know what their users (the whole community, not only MNs) really want to be implemented first, second and so on.
4) Better decision making by attracting more active people to voting, creating proposals and budgeting.
5) Developers, masternodes and miners could get more fees (rewards) in case of fractional voting for users (not for MNs) would be taxed.

CONS:
1) Difficulties to implement such system (Lite nodes needed?)
2) ?

 

[InTheWoods]

Aside from what has been said so far a friend made a very good point and he's totally right:

A high price to entry for these nodes will price out 98% of the world's population. You don't want to have a community of just middle class geeks now do you? Ideally we'd like to have worldwide node distribution would we not? Having node shares is great and all but that's still a centralized system with 3rd party risk. Voting presents similar problems. Sure you can have fractional voting but voting in from inside node shares is still centralized voting.

DASH has a nice governance model and decentralized voting by blockchain as well as node incentive features but other projects will just fork these features and reap the benefits if we can't find a way to make things more inclusive. It's a simple as that. If we don't do it someone else will.

 

[lynx]

You don't want to have a community of just middle class geeks now do you?

I do want a comunity of geeks. I don't want someone who doesn't understand economics or how cryptocurrencies work to have a say in if we should increase the blocksize.

 

[InTheWoods]

lynx

How do you know who has or who doesn't have said economic experience? Not sure I follow your logic. How does this fit into our discussion?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I think this is a case of running before walking.

Some of you are saying that MNs might become unaffordable to the vast majority of people, but we need to keep in mind, "rich" is relative. By the time we have a pool of 10 or 100 million users, the number of people that can afford 1000 dash will also grow. But okay, let's just say they represents 1% of the population.... that's still 10k or 100k MNs. Is that distributed enough?

But also, by the time we get to those numbers, what other services will dash be providing? So, let's think of cooperatives or community run banks... their members might park some money with the bank and some of it gets loaned out (I'm not talking fractional reserve!). Well, it seems to me the person parking their money should be entitled to vote. But if they're just holding dash and expecting to vote, then no, they really should be actively participating and not leeching.

...and maybe the types of votes allowed should be limited to the type of participation.

 

[lynx]

InTheWoods
I think it's fair to assume that early adopters would have some understanding of economics and crypto to invest in it while everyone else still thinks it is play money.

 

[SnowHater]

I do want a comunity of geeks. I don't want someone who doesn't understand economics or how cryptocurrencies work to have a say in if we should increase the blocksize.

Ok, and how having 5000$ proves to you that person is geek who understands economics and cryptocurrencies?

InTheWoods
I think it's fair to assume that early adopters would have some understanding of economics and crypto to invest in it while everyone else still thinks it is play money.

Early adopters then have trippled or quadrippled their voting power with 1000 USD invested compared to newcomers with 1000 USD (even in case of fractional voting would be already implemented and working). Isn't that enough for you?

 

[InTheWoods]

InTheWoods
I think it's fair to assume that early adopters would have some understanding of economics and crypto to invest in it while everyone else still thinks it is play money.

There is some truth to that but you can always make up arguments to rationalize a wishful thinking. Dictators have done this for thousands of years, rationalizing staying in power for any means necessary, deluding themselves that they are the only one who hold the answers. Power corrupts. This is why we need to decentralize all aspects of this project as much as we can.

 

[lynx]

Ok, and how having 5000$ proves to you that person is geek and understands economics and cryptocurrencies?

It proves nothing, but there is a strong correlation between education and wealth. Weren't you saying that in the future this would be a problem and only the rich would be able to acquire a node?

Early adopters then have trippled or quadrippled their voting power with 1000 USD compared with newcomers. Isn't that enough for you?

I think of the people who are coming in now still as early adopters. Anyways, they didn't quadrippled their voting power, they quadrippled their wealth. Voting power has been diluted as more masternodes were formed.

There is some truth to that but you can always make up arguments to rationalize a wishful thinking. Dictators have done this for thousands of years, rationalizing staying in power for any means necessary, deluding themselves that they are the only one who hold the answers. Power corrupts. This is why we need to decentralize all aspects of this project as much as we can.

Dictators coerce people to obey them. Masternode operators provide a service people use willingly.

 

[InTheWoods]

lynx

I was talking about this type of wishful thinking, of thinking you are better than the rest to justify staying in power. I wasn't talking about masternodes. .

Correlation between education and wealth? I can name you dozen of billionaires who are school dropouts. There's plenty of them. As I've mentioned already there are sectors like the oil sector or banking sector that pay better than more brain intensive jobs so there's that.

 

[SnowHater]

Anyways, they didn't quadrippled their voting power, they quadrippled their wealth. Voting power has been diluted as more masternodes were formed.

I said 'compared to newcomers', not to each other.
Let's imagine you come in 2 years ago when 1 DASH = 1 $ (for easy counting) and there are 500 (for easy counting) MNs overall. So with $5000 you have 5 MNs which is 1% of all voting power for that time. Now network has 3500 MNs, so your voting power is 0,14%. Newcomer with $5000 will get 1 MN, so his voting power will be 0,03%.

 

[lynx]

I said 'compared to newcomers', not to each other.
Let's imagine you come in 2 years ago when 1 DASH = 1 $ (for easy counting) and there are 500 (for easy counting) MNs overall. So with $5000 you have 5 MNs which is 1% of all voting power for that time. Now network has 3500 MNs, so your voting power is 0,14%. Newcomer with $5000 will get 1 MN, so his voting power will be 0,03%.

Yes, but now you are no different than any newcomer. You have $25.000 and 5 MNs. A newcomer with $25.000 can buy 5 MNs.