moli
Well-known member
Who has access to this fund to release it?
Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
There definitely needs to be a cap on proposals. Hopefully, things will be built that generate money, creating a second level self sustaining DAO, managed by those interested int it, and eventually creating a 3rd, 4th, 5th etc... level DAO. These will have nothing to do with the Masternodes, but will work in tandem with the system if need be. What kind of infrastructure do they need in Kenya? We have no idea, but they do. Let them build it. If it needs masternodes to function, there could be a plugin, and we could chare a very nominal fee for any project that plugs into the Masternode system.
Point being, yah, only a few, Evan once suggested capping it at 100, I thought maybe 20, but the more I think of it, the fewer the better. The sooner projects go 2nd tier, the better.
camosoul
Well-known member
Eh.... IRIS. This is supposed to be a currency, not a swiss army knife.
I agree, and if there could somehow be minority voice, say if it's really close, like under 55% yay, maybe it has to be voted on again after a debate? or? I'm not clear on how to make this work yet...
camosoul
Well-known member
Some projects will possibly need selling of their own, education, etc... But it's a smna;l;er crowd of educated people. MN operators. Not the whole cryptotard community. Maybe some will have to be tabled a few times before they are understood and fully informed decisions are made. Not a big deal, IMNSHO.
Camosoul, we are creating a world currency. Even if we only end up with 1/10 of the world's currency market in years to come, that's HUGE! Do you really think we could in any way possibly resolve all the things people will need? There will be TONS of businesses built off of this, and they will require a connection to the network. Why make it so more innovation can't be built off this structure? Why not make it something that scales? I almost think it has to scale, because I'm sure that if the western world creates things that works for it, it likely won't work for the 3rd world. They have completely different needs that we simply can't comprehend in the west. And the point of all this is to tap into their potential and make it easier and more likely that they join the rest of us in a global economy. No?
edited, didn't like how I started, sounded confrontational.
camosoul
Well-known member
But I like it when you have the scruff to be confrontational! That's how you get to the meat of the issue! ;-)
I believe the 3rd world will be the ones that run with it, and the 1st world has too much control... They don't need our permission to use DASH. Right this very moment, they can do whatever the hell they want, just like me.
Credit Card Terminals are being ditched for a smart phone with a card swiper... I live in po-dunk BFE and the "Chinese/Country Fusion Buffet" is already doing it. The problem of platform presence is only an issue in established bureaucracy. IS VISA going to allow DASH payments in their processors' firmware? Is Wal Mart going to fight about it? Fuck no! But loqueesha-click-click-afribabe with a 2nd hand smart phone sell her turnips to someone on a platform that the 1st world controllers can't touch?
The means by which that will happen is external to us, and it'll come from the little guy using a platform that can't be controlled by those with the money already. I think you'[re worrying about a non-issue that will work itself out better without our meddling, or help, as you've called it... The best thing we can do is get out of the way.
The 3rd world has an advantage, it can leapfrog the control freaks that the 1st world labors under the boots of...
No matter how much funding we divert from the blockchain, do you think the foundation will ever convince Wal Mart to drop it's credit card terninals for tablets that have more than just Visa and Mastercard in them? Supplanting turds is much harder than skipping them altogether.
Move to Africa, be part of the future! See you there in my Tesla FJ Cruiser.
Crap, did I just create DASH's own version of the "too the moon" meme? "To the Africa!"
From Shaft in Africa:
Last edited by a moderator:
alex-ru
Well-known member
It's not so much about minority ...
I just do not think system in which 55%, 75%, ... of MN ops will decide where 100% of the funds will go - is fair and "democratic" system.
People are tired of this injustice in the ordinary world, in politics. And Cryptocurrency theoretically (programmers have to say how much it is technically feasible) can give us more effective and fairer mechanism when the majority will not be in charge of all 100% of the money (including money of minorities).
In cryptoworld we do not need to choose the "only one president" or "only 2 party" - we can choose let's say 20 real projects, all of which are needed and in a reasonable time will be able to collect 100% of the necessary funds to them.
Solarminer
Well-known member
This sounds very cool. Maybe something like the Bitnation concept. There may be a way to make this work. I'll look into in more.
I still have my doubts of starting any centralized organization dealing with DASH distribution. As soon as there is a 'target' for a government/bankers there will be problems. I see a lot less problems when each contributor to DASH is just getting miner/masternode block rewards.
moli
Well-known member
A friend of mine, who's a self-employed business woman, has an iphone with this card swiper... One day she forgot the swiper, and no big deal, she just drove to a Wallgreen's and bought another one... i thought that was so cool..
Solarminer
Well-known member
alex-ru, How do you prioritize which projects get done? You can just fund them all, there is not enough funding. They need to be prioritized. Voting solves this.
Maybe another way to set the vote % is to have a majority vote(>51%) with a minimal no(<10%) vote. This might be more efficient than trying to get a high majority like 90%+ to vote in x timeframe.
51% yes and 5% no = pass.
70% yes with 29% no = not pass. Too many negative votes.
If the proposal gets kicked out the owner can change it to be more attractive(lower %, or faster timeframe).
Maybe another way to set the vote % is to have a majority vote(>51%) with a minimal no(<10%) vote. This might be more efficient than trying to get a high majority like 90%+ to vote in x timeframe.
51% yes and 5% no = pass.
70% yes with 29% no = not pass. Too many negative votes.
If the proposal gets kicked out the owner can change it to be more attractive(lower %, or faster timeframe).
tl;dr version of the most insightful post in this or any other thread, in case anyone skimming missed it:
camosoul
Well-known member
DASH can co-exist on that platform. I used to use Stripe, but they're on board with the fraudulent Operation Choke Point bullshit, so I dumped them.
moli
Well-known member
Maybe.
iPhone has Square. I think their merchant fee is a little higher than the old way merchant services.
Sorry, I had to run again Always posting and running. All good points. I'd still like to see a decentralized coin exchange, and think that would be beneficial to more than just DASH, but I don't see any other platform able to create it except DASH's
I agree, I don't want funds spent just because they're there, and I do see a surplus in the future that would be detrimental to the whole ecosystem (by taking them out of circulation) However, I don't see this working unless a % of the funds are removed from the block rewards before anyone gets their hands on it. Donations, even if automatic if a project is voted on, just won't work, IMO, because I think that it'll be harder to get MN owners to vote a reduction in their rewards each time a good project is proposed than if they never saw those funds.
Nice 4 tops song, was just reading earlier about the motor city in National Geographic....... if only I were young again.... (er...reference to Motown, you know.... ah ferget it ;P )
Always posting and running. All good points. I'd still like to see a decentralized coin exchange, and think that would be beneficial to more than just DASH, but I don't see any other platform able to create it except DASH's I agree, I don't want funds spent just because they're there, and I do see a surplus in the future that would be detrimental to the whole ecosystem (by taking them out of circulation) However, I don't see this working unless a % of the funds are removed from the block rewards before anyone gets their hands on it. Donations, even if automatic if a project is voted on, just won't work, IMO, because I think that it'll be harder to get MN owners to vote a reduction in their rewards each time a good project is proposed than if they never saw those funds.
Nice 4 tops song, was just reading earlier about the motor city in National Geographic....... if only I were young again.... (er...reference to Motown, you know.... ah ferget it ;P )
crowning
Well-known member
The Masternodes.
I don't yet know all the technical details, but when you look at how InstantX works (lock funds immediately on one side to avoid double spend, release them on the receiving side after 1 confirmation) you get an idea how it could be done.
masternode
Member
I haven't had the time to closely read all 16 pages of this thread, but while skimming it I noticed a couple of things.
In particular, I want to reinforce that it is important that the funds released cannot be voted back to the Masternodes, unless the entire SDGB project is a failure and everything is scrapped. The allocated funds should only be used to advance Dash and it's ecosystem otherwise we unnecessarily muddle every vote. I'll explain.
If you give people three choices, a.) pick door 1 and get an increase in value of an amount X in 1 years, b.) pick door 2 and get an increase in value of an amount Y over 2 years and c.) don't execute either and pay yourself $100 today, well then we know what the answer is likely to be. However, because people tend to prioritize short term gains doesn't mean that they aren't capable of making prudent long term choices (like say when the only two options are door 1 and door 2). So in my opinion, it's imperative we eliminate the option that funds can go anywhere other than the advancement of the coin, or we'll likely find this to be a friction point in every vote that misdirects from important conversations.
The final process for a project to go from proposal, through to vote, and on to execution will take iterations to achieve. We should expect to constantly be refining this process leveraging what we learn from the successes and failures that we vote into existence. With that being said, what Evan has proposed is just the first iteration of that process.
A friend of mine recently built Topchart (link below) as a way for him to leverage crowds to see what features he should deliver for start up projects he works on. I figured we could use it here and see what projects the community would want to have funded within Dash. Keep in mind he built it a couple of weeks ago and released it last week so it's still very raw, but it can help us organize and see what projects people think are important for us to fund and build, and we can quantify how important they are (which I'm excited to see). If it's useful, maybe we can even embed a version of this into Dashtalk. Just an idea.
http://www.topchart.io/projects/dash
-EM
In particular, I want to reinforce that it is important that the funds released cannot be voted back to the Masternodes, unless the entire SDGB project is a failure and everything is scrapped. The allocated funds should only be used to advance Dash and it's ecosystem otherwise we unnecessarily muddle every vote. I'll explain.
If you give people three choices, a.) pick door 1 and get an increase in value of an amount X in 1 years, b.) pick door 2 and get an increase in value of an amount Y over 2 years and c.) don't execute either and pay yourself $100 today, well then we know what the answer is likely to be. However, because people tend to prioritize short term gains doesn't mean that they aren't capable of making prudent long term choices (like say when the only two options are door 1 and door 2). So in my opinion, it's imperative we eliminate the option that funds can go anywhere other than the advancement of the coin, or we'll likely find this to be a friction point in every vote that misdirects from important conversations.
The final process for a project to go from proposal, through to vote, and on to execution will take iterations to achieve. We should expect to constantly be refining this process leveraging what we learn from the successes and failures that we vote into existence. With that being said, what Evan has proposed is just the first iteration of that process.
A friend of mine recently built Topchart (link below) as a way for him to leverage crowds to see what features he should deliver for start up projects he works on. I figured we could use it here and see what projects the community would want to have funded within Dash. Keep in mind he built it a couple of weeks ago and released it last week so it's still very raw, but it can help us organize and see what projects people think are important for us to fund and build, and we can quantify how important they are (which I'm excited to see). If it's useful, maybe we can even embed a version of this into Dashtalk. Just an idea.
http://www.topchart.io/projects/dash
-EM
Last edited by a moderator:
Aaaghhrrr, I wanted to let this go but this contrived bullshit makes me sick.
Call a fucking spade a spade. You want to slurp money off every infrastructure provider whether any of us want it or not, and whether there even exists a credible value adding project for it to be spent on or not. And we're never getting any of it back.
Because MN ops are all too stupid and short sighted to approve any value adding project at all. You know best!
It's all for our own good, right?
Where have we heard that before? Ah yes, every bankrupt and corrupt government and central planning committee, ever.
Taking from people without their consent is theft, plain and simple.
Funding should be approved first, then diverted. This one simple change of approach would turn this from the worst thing possible for DASH into something that could help make DASH unstoppable.
Taking it regardless leads to ruin, every single time. You are all going to get fleeced if you don't insist right now on NOT automatically funnelling money into the pockets of freeloaders who know that they'll be able to railroad cash into their own projects because nobody can be bothered voting nay as your vote is effectively toothless.
Last edited by a moderator: