Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

[Minotaur]

This is blatant nonsense. Neither of us have said any such thing. I just think the process needs modifying to prevent waste and abuse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or maybe it's because we care about the project and know full well how this is going to play out?
I can see the $$$ signs whirring in the eyes of certain folk who have Evan's ear, they think they've hit the jackpot with a perma-fountain of easy money here. I've made my case, I'll shut up. Unless Moli wants to step in and give me some rough stuff.

1. 100% agreed, the system needs mechanics that prevent abuse, that has traditionally been the issue with crypto foundations e.g. BTC. That is why a superior system is needed. The most important difference in this case is the spending options are presented facing the public in a website and any budget needs 51% approval of the masternode operator assembly to move forward, plus is active voting so the funding can be retired. That is what makes this model different and it constitutes the most important protection against abuse. Besides this, I do agree that other aspects like a revision of the program every X amount of time (Tao's suggestion) or other additional protection mechanisms could be added.

2. The second part of your argument seems to be a personal attack, I have avoided those so far, but is a little disappointing to be honest. I ask excuses to the community but I will respond just this one time on a personal level.

From that point of view, it would be far more lucrative to me to just let my nodes get 60% of the reward, only it would not be as the long term viability of the project depends on the creation of value.

- I am donating 20 masternodes earnings to development, how much are you donating? Do you think is a good idea to have mobile wallets, well our new mobile developers need an incentive to do that, as part of our core development contest, because they were not here from the beginning. Anything the project needs that was not within the aggregated abilities of the early adopters needs to be funded.

I was also entrusted with a responsibility to work on the development team, that has only cost me substantial amounts of my personal money, and brought a lot of joy of contributing to something I believe in. For example, I already paid 2.5K for our animated video and won't get any coins until the video is out, as they remain in escrow in someone else's control. When was the last time that you financed something for Dash?

Finally, in my quality of team member, I don't run around looking for new projects that could compete with Dash and spam our thread looking to deviate attention to any SPR/Mr. Spread that comes around. To only months after those developers disappear, come here making accusations of dollar signs to the people that were hard at work for Dash all that time.

Other than that, I think you are an important asset to the community and I only felt compelled to respond to that because it felt unfair from my perspective and I hope we can all work together to find what is best for Dash and leave aside any personal attacks or unfair accusations.

 

[David]

I agree Minotaur. The following comment is symptomatic of somebody who is overly excited:

Or maybe it's because we care about the project and know full well how this is going to play out?

Lonecrouton may think he knows what the outcome will be, but he cannot possibly "know full well" exactly what the future holds. He's been a very valuable contributor here and on BCT, but I think he's getting a little carried away here.

 

[strix]

You honour me sir! I just logged on to find a piece of info. I have been on something of an enforced fast from Dash, and hope to be back soon. All is well, and I am trying to use what little free time I have to get a very secure masternode up and running using Arch Linux on a pi-2. I simply do not have time to deal with all the things I would like to at this point. However I will try to make time to look into whatever question you have tagged me on here.

I currently reading just this one post by Tao that is on page 10; so I hope that whatever you were wanting my comment on is either already resolved, or not very important. To be honest, I don't know whether to find it alarming, or impressive,that my input is considered important!:what: But thank you.:grin:

As it currently stands, I hope to be able to devote regular attention here in about two weeks...

Edit--I thought I added the quote from Tao of S on page ten, wondering what happened to me, but I have apparently forgotten how to quote in my absence:sad:.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

I happen to care a lot for this project as well, and work extremely hard for its well being. This is a revolutionary idea, of course it will take time to hammer out the details.

What disappoints me as well is the personal attacks that are coming about by certain individuals. We have been a community for a long time, we know that everyone who has posted here on a regular basis for the last year cares a lot about the project.

People such as Minotaur, tungfa, and myself do work damn hard for the promotion of this coin, and we would deserve to get a fair portion of the proceeds of this. But to suggest that there is some back room cronyism happening here is absurd and insulting. No one wants more than their fair share, and work sure is being done to support that, just because it isn't coding.

Now, as to my suggestions. You already know my idea to do this program in contracts, adjusting as we go. The term can be negotiated, but it is important as we have the variables of Dash value, and available worthy projects.

I think it's important to have structure for the actual implementation as well. We cannot have voting for new projects ongoing every day, all day. What I propose for this instance is a monthly "meeting" where ideas can be proposed and voted on. The ideas can be announced at any time the previous month, it would be advantageous to announce potential projects earlier in the month so a better understanding can be created, resulting in potentially more support.

When the voting date comes, enact a 24 hour period where it is possible to vote on all projects. Multiple yes votes are allowed, so then we would go with Evan's plan where the highest percentage of projects over 50 percent with available funding would get implemented.

This would only be to enact new projects, current running projects could be voted out at any time, due to inefficiency or whatever reason. There would need to be a way to code that in.

What do you guys think? It would result in a higher vote percentage if it is known that it was only once a month.

Tao

 

[Solarminer]

Solarminer said: ↑
I was suggesting to send the coins back after some time if they were not used in deserving projects.
Proposal:
If MN operator can't dispose of "his" developing budget by himself for 1-2 years - these funds must be automatically sent to Official Foundation multi signature address - so these funds will be used (even If it wouldn't be as effective as in case MN-operator decided by himself) to develop DASH project anyway.

Woooh. Did I did say this? If so, I made a mistake. I do not agree that any funds should ever be taken in excess of what is needed. I also believe that it is not likely any donation/tax would ever be returned. The only option I would promote is to have a certain amount taken WHEN a specific project is voted in. I also believe that once a project is proposed it is likely to get the votes needed BEFORE the project has begun. Why donate when the project is going forward anyway? I also don't want to see reviews every year for anything, this won't work in crypto. Each project will have a timeline the developer proposes (3 mo, 6mo, 1year, 2 years) and once voted, funds are transferred as a % of block rewards(1%, 5%, 10%) for only that length of time.

As for those thinking that Masternodes won't vote in projects with a 51% yes how about we change the voting structure as follows:

• Bug Fixes, DASH website, minimal expenses to keep coin alive

Vote to go forward = automatic, A vote no of 51% can stop it.​

• Core features - in wallet features, masternode blinding, mobile wallets, etc.

Vote to go forward = 20%, A vote no of 51% can stop it.​

• Advertising/Marketing - not related to actual coin usage, but desired to increase adoption.

Vote to go forward = 51%, A vote no of 51% can stop it.​

There would need to be a set voting time. Maybe 2 weeks, 4 weeks? If 51% yes is achieved before 2 weeks the project moves forward right away. If in 2 weeks a core feature project gets 20% of vote it moves forward. And bug fixes, website, etc will go forward in 2 weeks unless rejected by 51% of the votes. I can see projects getting submitted each quarter and getting voted on.

 

[camosoul]

I am not against this proposal, to say so is a blatant lie.

I'm against the current for of execution. I think more effort was put into other details (and for good reason) and the execution was not well thought out.

This is meant to be what keeps the project alive into the future. A pork barrel is a guaranteed disaster.

I stand by my original proposition of a job queue in conjunction with a budget rate. The idiots suggesting that everyone will vote no all the time are flying in the face of their own argument "Wisdom of the hoarde."

MN operators are a specific demographic, not just any bunch of idiots with iPhones and a trust wallet... Some may be dumb enough to vote no on everything, but these are a minority. The objective is to more the decimal point left. If a cap at 15% for project funding can move the decimal point left, we're going to vote yes on it.

The objective is to not divert funds in the first place, if there's nothing worthy of them. It's not "unpredictable." We're here talking about exactly how it'll work and that;\'s what makes it predictable... We're talking about making a construct by which it will be 100% under control and 100% predictable.

Basically, a handful of socialist moochers got dollar signs in their eyes when they saw the money pit and the many ways they could abuse it just like they do in other aspects of their lives already. They don't want a control mechanism implemented and they keep making nonsense arguments against such. They want the open-ended pork barrel in DASH because that's what they use in other aspects of their lives already... They know exactly what they can do to divert it into their pockets and they don't want to see a control mechanism to stop them from doing so.

MNs get to vote on whether a job is added to queue. They vote on the percentage diverted, and it's capped at 15%. It is diverted from the MN slice, not the Miner slice. If an individual wants to pay more of his personal slice, he can, but can't force others over the voted upon percentage. No pork barrel for the moochers to mooch. Only gets diverted when there's something worth diverting for.

Right now, today, there seems to be an inexhaustible number of projects. The short-sighted youngsters with no experience see no reason to avoid a pork barrel. Government. Look at it. Anything that can be abused over generations, will be. Maybe Evan and Propulsion and Flare and Udjin are decent guys that wouldn't abuse it, but this is crypto... If you don't think that eventually some dickbag will come along and abuse it, you're a fucktard of the greatest magnitude. You give the power to pork barrel bullshit, someone WILL use it eventually.

There must be a control mechanism on this, and the best way is to follow the example already set in crypto: If a miner isn't mining, funds aren't diverted to his address, fucking duh! If an MN isn't running, funds are not paid to it's address, fucking duh. If there's no job to do in the job queue, funds are not diverted to it, fucking duh.

This is supposed to be about making sure the project can outlast it's founders. A pork barrel is guaranteed to destroy it. Look around. Why do you see no other examples of it? Because it doesn't last. The only place you see it alive is in government, because they just jack up taxes and print more money. You don't see it anywhere else because anyone else who does it self-destructs.

The vultures are already circling, making excuses to prevent a control mechanism. It's not a matter of "maybe someone might abuse it." We see the bullshit baseless arguments to keep the pork barrel in place by the very parties planning to abuse it already... Anyone with real life experience in business has seen this over and over... They think they're being clever because they're noobs and they think everyone else is a noob, too. It's one of the most common things to happen in a stockholder meeting... The old men look across the table at each other knowingly as the youngsters think they're gonna get away with it, cuz us dumb old guys are fools... We didn't get to be old and still here by being dumb... Everyone tries it, and they all think they're so clever...

I absolutely love this proposition, but it needs a control mechanism. The very same control mechanism that already exists in MNs and Mining. If the project isn't worth doing, the funds stay in the block reward. Fucking duh.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

You honour me sir! I just logged on to find a piece of info. I have been on something of an enforced fast from Dash, and hope to be back soon. All is well, and I am trying to use what little free time I have to get a very secure masternode up and running using Arch Linux on a pi-2. I simply do not have time to deal with all the things I would like to at this point. However I will try to make time to look into whatever question you have tagged me on here.

I currently reading just this one post by Tao that is on page 10; so I hope that whatever you were wanting my comment on is either already resolved, or not very important. To be honest, I don't know whether to find it alarming, or impressive,that my input is considered important!:what: But thank you.:grin:

As it currently stands, I hope to be able to devote regular attention here in about two weeks...

Edit--I thought I added the quote from Tao of S on page ten, wondering what happened to me, but I have apparently forgotten how to quote in my absence:sad:.

LOL! I just miss your posts...good to see you back! You have a way with words that's nice to read.

 

[Ryan Taylor]

Woooh. Did I did say this? If so, I made a mistake. I do not agree that any funds should ever be taken in excess of what is needed. I also believe that it is not likely any donation/tax would ever be returned. The only option I would promote is to have a certain amount taken WHEN a specific project is voted in. I also believe that once a project is proposed it is likely to get the votes needed BEFORE the project has begun. Why donate when the project is going forward anyway? I also don't want to see reviews every year for anything, this won't work in crypto. Each project will have a timeline the developer proposes (3 mo, 6mo, 1year, 2 years) and once voted, funds are transferred as a % of block rewards(1%, 5%, 10%) for only that length of time.

As for those thinking that Masternodes won't vote in projects with a 51% yes how about we change the voting structure as follows:

• Bug Fixes, DASH website, minimal expenses to keep coin alive

Vote to go forward = automatic, A vote no of 51% can stop it.​

• Core features - in wallet features, masternode blinding, mobile wallets, etc.

Vote to go forward = 20%, A vote no of 51% can stop it.​

• Advertising/Marketing - not related to actual coin usage, but desired to increase adoption.

Vote to go forward = 51%, A vote no of 51% can stop it.​

There would need to be a set voting time. Maybe 2 weeks, 4 weeks? If 51% yes is achieved before 2 weeks the project moves forward right away. If in 2 weeks a core feature project gets 20% of vote it moves forward. And bug fixes, website, etc will go forward in 2 weeks unless rejected by 51% of the votes. I can see projects getting submitted each quarter and getting voted on.

It could also be that some proposals are competing with each other. For example, once a development budget is established, you might put to a vote "do we pursue roadmap A, B, C, D, or E for development?" Then the MN owners vote for one (or maybe more) of the roadmaps they support and if nothing gets 51% of the vote, you hold a runoff of the top two roadmaps. So I think there are definitely different ways that the votes could work for different purposes:


1) True yes/no propositions (e.g., should we change the frequency of budget reviews to become an annual process?)
2) Competing propositions in which you are only allowed to vote for one in order to have your vote counted (similar to voting for President in the US)
3) Competing propositions in which you may vote for more than one and the highest vote count wins (e.g., roadmaps or budgets could be handled this way)
4) Runoff propositions in which the top two winning propositions make it to the final round and are voted on (e.g., vote "yay" for roadmap A and "nay" for roadmap B)

With a simple yes/no vote a bunch of different vote types can be enabled.

 

[David]

Tao, I agree that Dash price should be taken into consideration.

We are openly competing with Bitcoin...what happens if/when we arrive at Bitcoin's current marketcap of 3.3 billion dollars? Dash would be worth $600 each, which means 15% of block rewards would equal 7.4 million dollars per month. Such a large number is likely beyond the community's ability to successfully police.

Perhaps the percentage could be reevaluated and adjusted every 3-6 months, based on:

1) Amount of Dash currently unspent/unallocated
2) Current price of Dash

e.g. Target amount per month is not to exceed $100,000 with not more than $600,000 in Dash reserved but unallocated. If either of those numbers is breached, then the 15% would be reduced to the necessary level to fit those guidelines.

 

[Solarminer]

I am not against this proposal, to say so is a blatant lie.

I'm against the current for of execution. I think more effort was put into other details (and for good reason) and the execution was not well thought out.

This is meant to be what keeps the project alive into the future. A pork barrel is a guaranteed disaster.

I stand by my original proposition of a job queue in conjunction with a budget rate. The idiots suggesting that everyone will vote no all the time are flying in the face of their own argument "Wisdom of the hoarde."

MN operators are a specific demographic, not just any bunch of idiots with iPhones and a trust wallet... Some may be dumb enough to vote no on everything, but these are a minority. The objective is to more the decimal point left. If a cap at 15% for project funding can move the decimal point left, we're going to vote yes on it.

The objective is to not divert funds in the first place, if there's nothing worthy of them. It's not "unpredictable." We're here talking about exactly how it'll work and that;\'s what makes it predictable... We're talking about making a construct by which it will be 100% under control and 100% predictable.

Basically, a handful of socialist moochers got dollar signs in their eyes when they saw the money pit and the many ways they could abuse it just like they do in other aspects of their lives already. They don't want a control mechanism implemented and they keep making nonsense arguments against such. They want the open-ended pork barrel in DASH because that's what they use in other aspects of their lives already... They know exactly what they can do to divert it into their pockets and they don't want to see a control mechanism to stop them from doing so.

MNs get to vote on whether a job is added to queue. They vote on the percentage diverted, and it's capped at 15%. It is diverted from the MN slice, not the Miner slice. If an individual wants to pay more of his personal slice, he can, but can't force others over the voted upon percentage. No pork barrel for the moochers to mooch. Only gets diverted when there's something worth diverting for.

Right now, today, there seems to be an inexhaustible number of projects. The short-sighted youngsters with no experience see no reason to avoid a pork barrel. Government. Look at it. Anything that can be abused over generations, will be. Maybe Evan and Propulsion and Flare and Udjin are decent guys that wouldn't abuse it, but this is crypto... If you don't think that eventually some dickbag will come along and abuse it, you're a fucktard of the greatest magnitude. You give the power to pork barrel bullshit, someone WILL use it eventually.

There must be a control mechanism on this, and the best way is to follow the example already set in crypto: If a miner isn't mining, funds aren't diverted to his address, fucking duh! If an MN isn't running, funds are not paid to it's address, fucking duh. If there's no job to do in the job queue, funds are not diverted to it, fucking duh.

This is supposed to be about making sure the project can outlast it's founders. A pork barrel is guaranteed to destroy it. Look around. Why do you see no other examples of it? Because it doesn't last. The only place you see it alive is in government, because they just jack up taxes and print more money. You don't see it anywhere else because anyone else who does it self-destructs.

The vultures are already circling, making excuses to prevent a control mechanism. It's not a matter of "maybe someone might abuse it." We see the bullshit baseless arguments to keep the pork barrel in place by the very parties planning to abuse it already... Anyone with real life experience in business has seen this over and over... They think they're being clever because they're noobs and they think everyone else is a noob, too. It's one of the most common things to happen in a stockholder meeting... The old men look across the table at each other knowingly as the youngsters think they're gonna get away with it, cuz us dumb old guys are fools... We didn't get to be old and still here by being dumb... Everyone tries it, and they all think they're so clever...

I absolutely love this proposition, but it needs a control mechanism. The very same control mechanism that already exists in MNs and Mining. If the project isn't worth doing, the funds stay in the block reward. Fucking duh.

YES!

And also think that this isn't a 2 year contract for a job. This will keep going for the next 100+ years. What is 15% going to be then? Let's compare with 15% of bitcoin block rewards? 15% x 25 coins/block x 6 blocks/hr x 24 hrs/day x 30 days/mo x $235/ BTC = $3.8 million each month. Maybe we need 0.1% or 0.01% block reward split options.

David, we are in sync as I just wrote this before your post.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

It could also be that some proposals are competing with each other. For example, once a development budget is established, you might put to a vote "do we pursue roadmap A, B, C, D, or E for development?" Then the MN owners vote for one (or maybe more) of the roadmaps they support and if nothing gets 51% of the vote, you hold a runoff of the top two roadmaps. So I think there are definitely different ways that the votes could work for different purposes:


1) True yes/no propositions (e.g., should we change the frequency of budget reviews to become an annual process?)
2) Competing propositions in which you are only allowed to vote for one in order to have your vote counted (similar to voting for President in the US)
3) Competing propositions in which you may vote for more than one and the highest vote count wins (e.g., roadmaps or budgets could be handled this way)
4) Runoff propositions in which the top two winning propositions make it to the final round and are voted on (e.g., vote "yay" for roadmap A and "nay" for roadmap B)

With a simple yes/no vote a bunch of different vote types can be enabled.

Yes.

Tao, I agree that Dash price should be taken into consideration.

We are openly competing with Bitcoin...what happens if/when we arrive at Bitcoin's current marketcap of 3.3 billion dollars? Dash would be worth $600 each, which means 15% of block rewards would equal 7.4 million dollars per month. Such a large number is likely beyond the community's ability to successfully police.

Perhaps the percentage could be reevaluated and adjusted every 3-6 months, based on:

1) Amount of Dash currently unspent/unallocated
2) Current price of Dash

e.g. Target amount per month is not to exceed $100,000 with not more than $600,000 in Dash reserved but unallocated. If either of those numbers is breached, then the 15% would be reduced to the necessary level to fit those guidelines.

Yes. Some good ideas coming through the pipe on lucky page 13...:grin:

 

[camosoul]

Btw, in the part of my message that you don't quote I was suggesting to send the coins back after some time if they were not used in deserving projects. I like base zero budgeting and I don't want stupid projects getting fund either.

Sending back is messy to keep proportional and proper. Better to simply not divert from the block reward in the first place. Job queue empty, block reward stays where it is. Just like non-mining miners, and non-operating MNs.... This doesn't have to be hard.

 

[camosoul]

Let's compare with 15% of bitcoin block rewards? 15% x 25 coins/block x 6 blocks/hr x 24 hrs/day x 30 days/mo x $235/ BTC = $3.8 million each month. Maybe we need 0.1% or 0.01% block reward split options.

We can vote on that implementation when the time comes. If ti makes it into the job queue, then it will be in the next update.

 

[camosoul]

1. Predictably accumulating stable budget FOR RD&marketing from nobody (it doesn't harm anyone).

The lie of an entitled welfare brat who lack a grasp on reality...

Someone pays for the free stuff. Always. The suggestion that the money comes from nobody is a lie. Some is paying, it just isn't you, so you don't bother to see it... As long as it's someone else paying the price, you pretend there's no harm... Probably just honestly oblivious/clueless. There is no money for nothing. You can't get free money from nowhere/nobody.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

We can vote on that implementation when the time comes. If ti makes it into the job queue, then it will be in the next update.

The ability to make future adjustments is key, to avoid the "pork barrel" scenario you described, which I totally agree with.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

The lie of an entitled welfare brat who lack a grasp on reality...

Someone pays for the free stuff. Always. The suggestion that the money comes from nobody is a lie. Some is paying, it just isn't you, so you don't bother to see it... As long as it's someone else paying the price, you pretend there's no harm... Probably just honestly oblivious/clueless. There is no money for nothing. You can't get free money from nowhere/nobody.

Camo, please refrain from the personal attacks. Good ideas are being proposed, and alex-ru is a fantastic community member who is absolutely killing it for Dash. Let's keep the discussion about ideas.

P.S. Please don't shoot me! :tongue:

 

[camosoul]

We have the technology to avoid the pitfalls of a budgeting. When one makes a budget, it's always a struggle to pull it back when unused, because the parties spending it on themselves will find something to spend it on to justify that the budget be repeated intact. We don't need to go down that path because we have tech to side step it. We can real-time the money with a job queue. Those who like wasting budgets and playing that game are out in force to prevent a control mechanism...

 

[Solarminer]

It could also be that some proposals are competing with each other. For example, once a development budget is established, you might put to a vote "do we pursue roadmap A, B, C, D, or E for development?" Then the MN owners vote for one (or maybe more) of the roadmaps they support and if nothing gets 51% of the vote, you hold a runoff of the top two roadmaps. So I think there are definitely different ways that the votes could work for different purposes:
1) True yes/no propositions (e.g., should we change the frequency of budget reviews to become an annual process?)
2) Competing propositions in which you are only allowed to vote for one in order to have your vote counted (similar to voting for President in the US)
3) Competing propositions in which you may vote for more than one and the highest vote count wins (e.g., roadmaps or budgets could be handled this way)
4) Runoff propositions in which the top two winning propositions make it to the final round and are voted on (e.g., vote "yay" for roadmap A and "nay" for roadmap B)
With a simple yes/no vote a bunch of different vote types can be enabled.

I have said this in another post, that the votes shouldn't just be just yes or no, but 3 meaningful letters. So instead of NAY you would vote BLY for blinding yes. Or BLN for blinding no. I only say 3 letters, because it may not require as much change to the code. Maybe it can be Blinding-Y or Blinding-N. But either way I see this as a much easier way to manage votes for multiple projects than a simple yes/no. With only yes/no option, there would need to be a question matrix and new code to support each question - sounds ugly to me.

If there are too many projects voted yes for the 15% cap, then there would a project priority vote.

Who is with me on this? Let's hear the Yays.

 

[camosoul]

Camo, please refrain from the personal attacks. Good ideas are being proposed, and alex-ru is a fantastic community member who is absolutely killing it for Dash. Let's keep the discussion about ideas. Please don't shoot me! :tongue:

That's why I added the part about it possibly just being honest ignorance... Money doesn't come from nowhere... He tried to present his argument as better by flopping that lie up on deck. Duh. Of course it would be better to get money from nowhere. That's how you win the argument... But there is no such thing as getting money fromnowhere. It's just like the gun control argument. "IF bad people can't get them becasue of a law..." Oh yeah, cuz that always works, I guess there's no such thing as weed cuz there's a law...

The point is, to propose an impossible solution that cannot exist and cannot work is no argument at all. I propose that we shut off gravity so we don't need cars anymore, and we can all just flap our arms and fly around everywhere... Gravity is a republican conspiracy, hate the republicans!

It's easy to suggest impossible crapola when you're too clueless to realize that it's impossible. Of course it sounds like a good idea, it's the best idea! It wins all arguments! Lets all just get money from nowhere! Whee! Free money spewing from my pockets, I voted for it! Anyone who is against free money pants pockets is a dirty republican asshole!

 

[Minotaur]

We have the technology to avoid the pitfalls of a budgeting. When one makes a budget, it's always a struggle to pull it back when unused, because the parties spending it on themselves will find something to spend it on to justify that the budget be repeated intact. We don't need to go down that path because we have tech to side step it. We can real-time the money with a job queue. Those who like wasting budgets and playing that game are out in force to prevent a control mechanism...

I think you raised some valid concerns, I just disagreed with some of the proposed solutions for those concerns. I think the development and promotional fund could have a cap, so that it is not open ended. A good amount that allows to cover the development needs of the project. If that cap is reached the excess could go back to miners(where it is now) to secure the network. That is where I think we see it differently, I totally disagree about it going back to masternodes, as they are the ones voting and that would create a huge conflict.

Also any project that is executed from the reserves would need the approval of all masternodes, so there will be controls in place. What do you think about something like that?