This is indeed an interesting proposal.
The new consortium of reviewers would become the gatekeepers to low value proposals. Whereas such proposals were previously voted on by the thousands, they are now voted on by a small group for convenience. With a limited amount of Dash, perhaps some microproposals would get approved and others not. In a perfect implementation of this system, the proposals that add value get in, and the fraudulent ones never get through. But suppose the fraudster decided to pay the judge?
- What assurances do we have that judges are acting in the best interest of the Network? In my life I have witnessed small city councils just as corrupt as any senate or congress. Corruption seems to be never too far behind the gatekeeper.
- How can the council's decisions be audited and/or overruled by the larger community? What are the safeguards here?
- How might conflicts of interest or instances of corruption be addressed if and when they do arise?
- How are the gatekeepers selected, by whom and based on what merit?
- How might a gatekeeper's term come to an end if they were found to be acting with impropriety?
- How long would such a judge be a judge for? Are there term limits?
These are just some questions that come to mind. I like this idea, and feel it serves a need. But ultimately, these issues may arise. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Concentrating power into the hands of the few is not a decision the community should make lightly or rush into. Maybe it all starts off great... but over time these issues arise. Eventually people may seek out these positions with the intention to exploit for profit. Just look at politics for evidence of how common this phenomenon is. How can effective safeguards be established?
Is there room for a model in which this service is provided, but the full weight of the network can also bear down on any proposal at any moment to deliver a binding decision more powerful than the sub committee?
You make really great points. Thank you greatly for your feedback. I am going to respond to each point in order, most of these I have thought of, a few are new, but I believe all have a suitable answer
0 - "Fraudster pays judge." I believe this is mitigated primarily by the fact you have 3 different members who would all have to be bribed. However, that is not impossible. As such, I just messaged my dev and informed him we must implement a feature where the picked reviewers are random. As such, you would have to bribe 3 random people, hope they accept, and then get past the final layer of my admin sniffing nose, which btw will be reviewing every single petition thoroughly. In addition, the team I will be compiling will have to weigh the decision. I have a large focus on hiring high quality people, they have to make the decision and realize "I am currently getting paid to do this... If I get caught I lose all my reputation and this steady income." But those three could still make that decision. In additional addition, if the poll is negative it will not be funded. I think this is definitely something that we will have to address in this plan. If you have any ideas please hit me up.
1 - "Assure Best Interest" At this point in time, I want all reviewers to preferably be MNOs. I believe this is important as they realize just the same as when voting on traditional proposals that these investments will affect the value of dash and as such, if they make good decisions then the price of their million dollar investment also goes up. I believe another key factor to making sure that the reviewers make good decisions will be that all decisions are public, both their initial independent decision and their final decision after talking with the others. The final decision will be paired with a detailed paper explaining why they made the decision they did. You will be able to comment on petitions, vote on petitions (1 Dash = 1 Vote) and report/give negative feedback on a reviewer. If you give good enough reasons or if enough people ask for it that person will be dismissed. Even while a petition is in progress, anyone can comment and vote on it and give their feedback. If it comes to a point, which I hope it never does, that DashBoost isn't listening to community feedback the DAO is always able to pull the plug. This gives everyone in the organization the incentive to make sure that we are following what is best for the network.
2 - "Auditable/Overrulable" Right, so it should be easily audit-able as all information will be completely public and all in one place. I will continue to work with my dev to make sure all the information is super easily view-able public transparent and the like to make sure that if someone wants to look into where the funds are going they can. In regards to being able to be overruled, on the scale of an individual petition, the easiest would be having an overwhelming majority of 'NO' votes in the poll. In such a case, it would either not pass in the first place or if it did pass and then those votes came in once it's funding would get cut off. Most of these petitions will be 75+% paid at completion not on initial pass. Again comments etc talking to me on discord about it stuff like that. If we don't take that feedback and don't supply a good enough reason why not then the ultimate step is to defund us at the treasury level. And trust me, I don't want that to happen so I will do everything possible to follow in the community's wishes.
3 - "Conflict of Interests" There will be systems in place to insure a reviewer can not easily put in a petition without us finding out. If for example however a reviewer's buddy puts it in on the reviewers behalf, again that falls into the category of we have 3 independent reviewers + myself and other trusted admins for a reason. Chances are that person just donated a few hundred dollars. In the case that we find out that one of our reviewers has been attempting to judge a petition not based on it's merit but based on the fact he or she is connected to it he or she will be h̶u̶n̶g̶ h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶d̶ b̶u̶r̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶k̶e̶ dismissed withholding all pending pay. There will also be a publicized post on the forum detailing our findings and what we have done to prevent this from happening in the future and any other relevant information. We will also directly tell key people like TaoOfSatoshi about it so he may do what he wishes. I feel that these procedures would stop it but if you have any ideas I will gladly take them into account.
4 - "How Reviewers Chosen?" As of this point in time, an interested person is to contact me with their reasoning as to why they believe they should be on the team. Major pluses in my book are being a MNO being well known and active in discord or having previous experience somewhat related like the old PEC (Proposal Evaluation Committee(which by the way, we might start back up if we have enough hands)) in the future there will be a section of the site where someone can submit a resume asking to be added on the team. We will effectively treat that as a petition with 0 funding. As such it will be public if it passes or not and why.
5 - "How will they be fired?" I see that there will be two routes of dismissal. Honorary dismissal and dishonorable dismissal. In the case of an Honorary/normal dismissal they will get their final paycheck, we will say thank you so much for helping out, cry a little, and then part our ways. In the case of a dishonorable dismissal, any unpaid balances they have earned will be withheld, and our findings will be publicized as well as how we will fix this issue insuring no more inappropriate actions happen in the future.
6 - "Term limits?" As of this point in time I do not image term limits being a necessity. If they are needed or the community adamantly want term limits we will gladly add them. I believe having the option to receive negative feedback and be dismissed is more important and productive than having term limits. I am open to this as a possibility I just don't see the plus side of it at this point in time.
Final - "binding decision more powerful than committee" The poll is a great place to look for this solution. If the poll is negative we WILL NOT directly fund it. If we really like it, but the community still says no for what ever reason, we might escrow it putting it directly to the treasury's vote. But we will NOT fund it directly without a positive yes poll.
