Proposal Evaluation Committee

[Biltong]

There is the easiest way，Directly marked on the post of the funded proposal，Unfinished annotation is in progress,Completed the markup for success，So that for unfinished projects, because of the special markings, will be node operators concerned about the progress of the project, and not because of the increase in the project caused by dazzling situation.

Hi Sasa, I think I'm getting where you are going, but the last sentence is weird. I think you are using Google translator? I'm not sure if this is possible, but can you post in your own language, (Mandarin?) then someone who can speak it can maybe translate. Otherwise type it again using different words in your own language. Translate again and post 2nd version as well. Between the two, I'm sure I'll get a better idea of what you mean to say. Sorry about this. This language thing is something that is going to become a huge problem when we grow into non-english countries. We'll have to get an easy solution.
And if someone can translate this into Mandarin for Sasa, I would really appreciate it.

 

[demo]

And if someone can translate this into Mandarin for Sasa, I would really appreciate it.

By the way, I have already proposed the concept of "credible judges" which seems something similar to your concept of evaluators.
The credible judges use cryptography of course, so you have to understand the concept of blind signatures in order to understand what the credible judges are.

 

[Biltong]

Mastermined is having network problems, so the skype meet has not happened and I don’t have any feedback for you.

In the meanwhile – all those who worry about this project leading to centralization - A reminder: Committees were catered for right from the start. See Forum: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/budget-system-funding-voting-dgbb.8762/ - Created by Robert Wiecko, last modified by Leonidas on Mar 22, 2017

"Managers, Committees ….
Some oversight will be needed for the blockchain contractors. Each budgeted item will require either a team manager or a committee. Periodically the managers will write what the person being paid is working on and show the value created from the funds that were allocated.

... Committees will be required to be completely transparent and post updates about the progress they’re making and where the money is going.

In the case where a committee isn’t being transparent or is not posting updates, the community will begin to inquire about the status of the project. If no satisfactory answer is given, support will be lost, masternodes will change their vote and the project will drop off of the budget. In a way this system should be self policing."

 

[dashly]

I like this... proposals that go through proper vetting through a proposal committee could have a "Verified" badge

 

[Biltong]

I like this... proposals that go through proper vetting through a proposal committee could have a "Verified" badge

Nice idea! The Evaluator Report will have a section dealing with the Originators credibility, but a simple Badge will save reading

 

[dashly]

Thanks @Biltong. The proposal committee could be proactive in evaluating the legitimacy of proposal, but ultimately it should be up to the proposer to get verified.

I think we could be overthinking the process a bit though. It could be a simple as adding a point-of-contact in the Dash offices to get verified. Somebody there could take on the responsibility to organize the people necessary to validate the legitimacy of a proposal. This could be a part time position or full time position depending on the number of proposals. If they deem it legitimate it get's the "Verified" badge, otherwise it will still be listed, but without the badge. This isn't quite decentralized, but it's not really centralized either since it's being evaluated by the DAO we are paying.

Here's another idea that is more of a decentralized approach... We give masternodes the ability to vote on the legitimacy of a proposal the same way they can vote to fund a proposal today. Once it passes a threshold, it gets a "Verified" badge. The downside risk is we can't be certain of the research individual masternodes will do to determine if a proposal is legitimate. Also, can't be sure there will be enough interest to actually do the research. To solve this, we could give a 0.01 Dash from the budget to any masternodes that vote on the legitimacy. For that matter, we could give a fraction of Dash from the budget to all masternodes that vote today to incentivize the voting process and increase voter turnout.

I think the process of getting the badge alone will be enough to scare off anyone trying to scam the system because proposals without a badge will be much less likely to pass.

 

[Biltong]

Good feedback that reinforce what I am planning. The plan at the moment is that each Evaluator will be trained how to do a legitimacy check. Each and every proposal originator will be checked - right at the start of the pre-proposal process. A Scammer will be red-flagged and not even reach the pre-proposal phase. Quite a lengthy and rather complicated process and the results will be published in the Evaluator Report saving everyone/MNO's the trouble of doing it again.
Of course MNO's will still be expected to do their own checks as well to keep the PEC (Proposal Evaluation Committee) honest. But at least we'll know a thorough check has been done and this will be common knowledge. The Evaluator Checklist and Report will be discussed in depth and final versions stickied prominently and this alone should dissuade most con-artist and time wasters.

 

[lynx]

To solve this, we could give a 0.01 Dash from the budget to any masternodes that vote on the legitimacy. For that matter, we could give a fraction of Dash from the budget to all masternodes that vote today to incentivize the voting process and increase voter turnout.

No, people would just automate voting to receive the reward. Let voting be.

 

[Biltong]

Sorry people. Mastermined has had internet problems, so we haven't been able to skype - maybe tonight? Will keep you updated. I have been working on the idea some more and it has grown quite a bit. More later.

 

[Biltong]

In the meanwhile: I need some input on how to run a check on a proposal Originator. If you have any ideas please post them in this tread:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...iginator-of-a-proposal-is-a-con-artist.14416/

 

[Biltong]

Update:
Spent some time getting feedback from MNO’s.
Skyped with Mastermined and he explained Dash Force and gave me valuable feedback – main one that I agree with: Do Baby Steps first!
Created a ‘How to do a Pre-Proposal’ https://goo.gl/RgIlEq and tungfa said he’ll incorporate it in the existing How to do a Proposal.
Busy with ‘Evaluation Guidelines and Question Weightings’ – will post as a separate thread to get feedback once I’m finished.

This is the PEC Road Map Summary Updated 17/4/24

1st Phase – Getting Stated – No Proposal - Free

1. Create How to do a Pre-proposal – Done. Tungfa will add to existing instructions.
2. Evaluation Guidelines and Question Weightings. In Progress
3. Design Report & Short List In Progress
4. Research PEC payment method/Contracts. In Progress
5. Facilitator duties and term.
6. Recruit 2 Evaluators
7. Test PEC on Proposals & Publicize Short List & Reports
8. Create PEC Pre-proposal.

2nd Phase – Categories, Evaluator Recruitment & Pre-Proposal

1. Define Categories.
2. Create Category specific Guidelines & Report.
3. Publicize the first Categorized Short List with the Reports.
4. Set up Evaluator Recruitment Process.

3rd Phase – Monitoring Proposals and Top Evaluator

1. Investigate a solution for monitoring of accepted proposals.
2. Recruit Top Evaluator (if needed) to supervise PEC

4th Phase - Getting more Proposals

Large number of ideas that will take some time to investigate

5th Phase – Rest of the world

1. Proposal forums in top 6 languages
2. Translate Guidelines into top 6 languages.
3. Recruit Evaluators in those languages.
4. Short List of viable Pre-Proposal/Proposals translated and posted in English for feedback/voting purposes

 

[ghowdy]

I like the idea to invest in an active human-run due-diligence process for proposals. The question is, who has the reputation and skills to perform the due-diligence? As an add to your pre-proposal, you could actually go an do this for this round of proposals, or next round.

I feel confusion when I look at your road-map. You are definitely developing a vision, but it seems more complex than it needs to be at this stage? All we need is a simple one-page report that lists the good proposals, and then a one-page-per-proposal mini-analysis that points out the most meaningful key points. Maybe this is what you are working on with your "in-progress" stuff?

 

[Biltong]

All we need is a simple one-page report that lists the good proposals, and then a one-page-per-proposal mini-analysis that points out the most meaningful key points. Maybe this is what you are working on with your "in-progress" stuff?

You got it - spot on! In fact the Evaluator Reports should be half a page. The Short List of proposals for last month would also be only half a page, but if there are 100 proposals it will be longer..
Here's an example - old and dated, but close to what the real thing will look like. https://goo.gl/XCE75L

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

Crap. That's what this is.
- Start a blog and 'evaluate' every proposal until you're satisfied.
- Post on this forum everything smart you have to say about a proposal.

 

[Biltong]

I like the idea to invest in an active human-run due-diligence process for proposals. The question is, who has the reputation and skills to perform the due-diligence?

Hoping to get the help of a couple of very experienced MNO evaluators... Discussions starting soon... we'll see if they volunteer.. nothing confirmed as yet.

As an add to your pre-proposal, you could actually go an do this for this round of proposals, or next round...

Yep - That is exactly what is planned. See the Road Map - https://goo.gl/TD6dtw

1st Phase – Getting Stated – No Proposal - Free ...
7. Test PEC on Proposals & Publicize Short List & Reports
8. (then only) Create PEC Pre-proposal.

 

[Biltong]

edit - double post

 

[mastermined]

Crap. That's what this is.
- Start a blog and 'evaluate' every proposal until you're satisfied.
- Post on this forum everything smart you have to say about a proposal.

It does seem to be a bit overly complex for this stage of the game. I would like to see a happy medium of what you are suggesting and what biltong has laid out.

 

[Vedran Yoweri]

I would like to see a happy medium of what you are suggesting

I like to see proposals that bring value (transaction fees) to the dash network.

Generic voting system

- Variable set of voters, variable cost per election (MN 2, Evolution Voting Group 0.05/500, Custom 0.1/1000)
- Running on dash masternode network, concurrent copies of current voting system.
- Monetizable outside dash & crypto world. For the glory of dash, the entrepreneur and mankind in general.
- Fees for Miners & MN.
- Better than current pre-proposal 'polls' - more trusted source for the real deal proposals.
- No 'top evaluators', 'managers' or other third party involvement. F*ck that sh*t.
- Example app for evolution apps.

 

[Biltong]

Judging from your amount of swearing you feel very strongly about this. Why don't you create a pre-proposal so we can all examine the detail of your alternative to the Proposal Evaluation Committee

 

[Biltong]

It does seem to be a bit overly complex for this stage of the game. I would like to see a happy medium of what you are suggesting and what biltong has laid out.

Certainly – It is ridiculously complex for the 10-20 proposals we are getting now!

However. When you plan for any project that has inherent growth you do not plan for the volume as it stands today. That would be criminally short sighted. You plan (at the very least) for volume you expect in a year or two. The PEC as it stands now should be able to handle 3 to 5 hundred proposals simply by expanding as set out. But, if we start actively recruiting proposals from the rest of the world then this “overly complex” system will be way too simple. It will need far more ‘complexity’. See the 4th and 5th phase in the Road Map above.