Ok, so I'm reading what you all are saying, and I believe I understand the main issues:
1. Rather than taking 15% of the mining rewards to create a fund that is then used to pay for core development, marketing and projects, some of you would prefer approving funding for things as we go, with a time limit on the donation to these projects.
a. This will likely make it harder to get consensus to fund a project, especially if it is coming out of masternode funds directly after they have become used to the rewards.
b. This might cut down on waste but is likely to under-fund core development and marketing. Since returning funds through block redistribution costs nothing, it is in no way wasteful.
Note: Solarminer, there should be no cost to run this DAO, it will be a program run off the blockchain. The DAO belongs to no country, so there will be no taxes until the funds are released to the DOA developers. These developers will have to account for the funds as self employed. And yes, I think the idea is that it will be a multi sig wallet, where a winning ballot unlocks one of the signatures, or else the signature.
Camosoul, you said:
It's impossible to put it back accurately and fairly once you take it. The MNs are responsible for the vote. They're the ones involved. It should come from their piece of the pie.
But I actually remember, the miners never had a choice in this, they were to have their rewards reduced to 40%, which hasn't happened yet. And the Masternodes were to get 60%, which hasn't happened yet. Right now, we have a good ROI with 2500 masternodes, and if we wanted to increase the number of masternodes for the network, all we'd have to do is halve the deposit required to running one. We don't need that extra 15% to increase the numbers to 3000 MNs. So really, the ROI isn't going to drop, just the number of MNs. If we halve the collateral then we would have more servers making the network better distributed. Also, since the cost of buying a masternode has gone up (due to price of DASH), I'd suspect it would still be as secure as ever. I also think returning any extra funds, after a savings is established, is very easy, and actually fairer if we share with the miners. Sharing with the miners will also makes it less likely that funds will be returned for purely altruistic reasons. Masternode voters will be more inclined to use funds for the benefit of the coin, than vote the funds back into their pockets if the projects or developers and marketing is more likely to benefit them (and the coin in general) than getting half the funds back.
David, yes, I think we need a quorum, I just didn't know the word for it. We may have good response in the begining, but as time goes on, I think something will have to be done for lack of interest/time to invest in being appraised of the proposals and giving an informed vote.
Alex-ru, I agree with you that a pure democracy could bring this down. If there were a tiered system, maybe we can make it more functional, with the voices of the minority being heard? I can't think of such a set up on the fly here, but it would be excellent if we could come up with some minority protections, and full community integration.
Solarminer, you said: "I agree Masternodes will donate to projects that make sense and raise the value of DASH. The problem is that I don't want to donate to 18 projects that get 1/4 funded and never happen. I want to donate to a project that will be completed because it will get the funds it needs. The voting system makes a consensus for the best projects and diverts funds to only those."
Agreed, and I believe we'll have to fund projects fully, either by dedicating future rewards to it, or keeping it ready to go in the blockchain. How can all this work? It's really not so hard. It can all be programmed into the block chain, and there should be progress reviews, headed by our main development team if appropriate, who will review what has been done, and make the recommendation to the network to make a progress payment. Or if nothing is being done on the project, a recommendation to put on hold, or cancel the project (if it's a scam) There are risks when hiring people, but we can minimize them just like any other business.
Crowning, you said "What still needs to be defined is how a destination address and the amount itself can be defined in a way that excludes possible manipulation (aka not done "by hand")."
I'm certain this can be done via contracts inside the DAO. The DAO coding, which must have a way to flexibly insert these contracts, will be assigned to the development team. It will be one of their responsibilities. (the way I see it)