Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

[camosoul]

Choose a model, vote, implement, and evaluate.

This type of thing has never been done before, we're arguing based on our prior experiences.

Throw that out the window, as what we are debating is a completely different beast. I would submit that no one in this thread has the clairvoyance to see the results of either side's thinking, which both have merit.

Both sides draw up proposals, we vote, implement and evaluate on a trial basis.

If we choose the fund option, and camosoul is right it turns into a pork barrel, then we re-evaluate at the end of the term.

If we choose the no-funding option and Masternode owners do just look after number one, then we reevaluate at the end of the term.

We all know what the successful implementation of this groundbreaking program would mean for Dash, and by extention the world, so we will need real-world trials to help us mold it over time.

This is not yet a democracy, and with good reason... No need to vote about it, Evan and company will, I trust, do the least retarded thing.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

This is not yet a democracy, and with good reason... No need to vote about it, Evan and company will, I trust, do the least retarded thing.

Neither option is retarded, my friend. They both have merit. Which one is the best, or could a hybrid be created? That remains to be seen.

 

[camosoul]

Lets look at the failure of the BitCoin Foundation as it is.

Pork Barrel. Regardless of whether you think they over funded or under funded, the bottom line is that they had a pork barrel and they didn't ever do shit with it. Virtually everything they did was silly, petty, nonsense that did precisely dick for crypto.

Will a mandatory tax fix that? Really?

 

[Solarminer]

Actually, if you're worried about funds on the blockchain, the model could just as easily be monthly. Any monthly excess goes back to the block rewards for the following month.?? I just thought yearly would have less "waves" of uncertainty and fluctuation in numbers of miners and mansternodes.

Actually, I am not worried about funds in the blockchain as they should be distributed as block rewards every 2.5 minutes. I am worried about the funds stored in a wallet. If there is some cool way to implement blockchain storage that I am missing, please tell.

Even with a monthly distribution, the threat of loss/abuse remains. Keep in mind once DASH explodes, the amount in this fund will be huge. Governments will try to tax it, bankers will try to get in the middle, it will probably be considered laundering money from terrorists from whatever false flag event. It will be more and more difficult to manage. Once a mandatory donation system is in place it will be impossible to go back. This is such a big deal for me, sorry to keep posting about it.

 

[camosoul]

Neither option is retarded, my friend. They both have merit. Which one is the best, or could a hybrid be created? That remains to be seen.

That's why I said least retarded.

Option 1) Imaginary Benefit + Pork Barrel + Impossible to Regulate Refunds.
Option 2) Actual Benefit + Nothing.

I'm simply flying the flag of the option that is clearly the least retarded...

MN operators will not vote down everything, no one with a functioning brain can even suggest that would come to pass. It's just plain silly and flies in the face of all the factors at play. That's like saying that miners would prefer that value never increase... They don't consider it because it doesn't apply to them directly. They're hand-to-mouth base-level animals of the system. MNs are a level that is several steps up, and never been in any other coin. It changes the whole game and those presenting the arguments as if that were not true are either deliberately trying to deceive for the sake of the pork barrel they're drooling over, or genuinely ignorant about how this works...

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Lets look at the failure of the BitCoin Foundation as it is.

Pork Barrel. Regardless of whether you think they over funded or under funded, the bottom line is that they had a pork barrel and they didn't ever do shit with it. Virtually everything they did was silly, petty, nonsense that did precisely dick for crypto.

Will a mandatory tax fix that? Really?

You can't compare that to this! The Bitcoin Foundation is a centralized entity getting funding from a few wealthy early adopters.

What we're talking about is voting in a decentralized way on how to spend a fund whose sole purpose is to improve the coin.

We can't compare this to any other model, because it simply has never been done before.

I see what you're saying, I do, but no comparison to any current model will do the DGBB justice...

 

[camosoul]

Actually, I am not worried about funds in the blockchain as they should be distributed as block rewards every 2.5 minutes. I am worried about the funds stored in a wallet.

Even this doesn't worry me, as the blockchain itself can authorize in the same way it does mined coins. Kinda like a multi-sig, one of the signers of which is the blockchain itself.

My concern is that it's all just a bad idea to begin with. Budgeting; we can rebuild it. We ahve the technology. Why the fuck are we even considering passing that up?

 

[camosoul]

You can't compare that to this! The Bitcoin Foundation is a centralized entity getting funding from a few wealthy early adopters.

What we're talking about is voting in a decentralized way on how to spend a fund whose sole purpose is to improve the coin.

We can't compare this to any other model, because it simply has never been done before.

I see what you're saying, I do, but no comparison to any current model will do the DGBB justice...

It wasn't a whole analogy, I admit, but it made the part of the point I was pressing on at the moment.

Now that this failure has occurred, we must learn from it.

Accusations will be made if there is a pork barrel. We have the ability to assure that these accusations cannot even be tabled. No pork barrel, no drama.

The advantages of the non-pork-barrel approach are just too much to ignore for an imagined temporal boost.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Even this doesn't worry me, as the blockchain itself can authorize in the same way it does mined coins. Kinda like a multi-sig, one of the signers of which is the blockchain itself.

My concern is that it's all just a bad idea to begin with. Budgeting; we can rebuild it. We ahve the technology. Why the fuck are we even considering passing that up?

Yes, you may be right, but it's far from certain. I maintain that trials are needed.

 

[Solarminer]

We have already tried the donate to whatever project you like without consensus. It kind of works. Not very efficient though. Lets not do that.

How about we just start with the "Vote for each project donation model"? If no projects get voted in we revisit the idea. That is really the only downside, right?

If we do the (I'll just state it like it is) 15% Tax model, I don't think we will be able to go back. Masternodes will build in the loss of previously projected increases -15%, and sell off. Yeah, I know this model sounds familiar, but don't let that fool you. Every government and state uses this model under the threat of force/jail if you don't pay.

 

[camosoul]

Example:

Day one:

Pork barrel has $1440 in it. Project costs $3000. Wait for funding.
No pork barrel. $3000 project is approved. $1440 applied. Wait for funding.

Whether the money comes on the front end or the back end, you still wait for it...

Pork Barrel's advertised benefit is imaginary.

What next, deficit spend on block futures? That's hardly predictable, eh? Where's GeorgeM? We need an animation of Ron Jeremy, wearing an XMR t-shirt, butt-raping the DASH blockchain, STAT!

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

We have already tried the donate to whatever project you like without consensus. It kind of works. Not very efficient though. Lets not do that.

How about we just start with the "Vote for each project donation model"? If no projects get voted in we revisit the idea. That is really the only downside, right?

If we do the (I'll just state it like it is) 15% Tax model, I don't think we will be able to go back. Masternodes will build in the loss of previously projected increases -15%, and sell off. Yeah, I know this model sounds familiar, but don't let that fool you. Every government and state uses this model under the threat of force/jail if you don't pay.

I agree with your trial idea, but not that we can't go back from either option. Markets are markets, they'll adjust either way.

We must get this right, and since this is a unique model, potentially several trials will be needed before we arrive at a solution. Like Evan said in the OP, no need to rush. Let's get it right, for all of our sakes.

Either model would be OK to try first, please don't try to bamboozle people.

 

[Solarminer]

FYI, I got a lot of likes on the post referencing trial the "Vote per project donation model".
So refining from there. Any feedback on the options I proposed below?

• Vote per project donation model
• 15% cap on rewards, which only come from masternode share of block rewards.
• Majority vote – 51% to pass or 51% to stop (but I don’t have much of an opinion on the %) with 2 week time limit for voting
• Projects prioritized by amount of yes votes, and put in queue any project voted with majority that can't fit under 15% funding cap.
• Modify Voting from Yay/Nay to voting with a “Project Name”-Y/N
• Modify wallet to include the masternode create project(2,12,Blinding, DASH Address) and masternode list projects.
• Details about each project posted by the owner in a forum post.

 

[Solarminer]

Example:
Day one:
Pork barrel has $1440 in it. Project costs $3000. Wait for funding.
No pork barrel. $3000 project is approved. $1440 applied. Wait for funding.

Whether the money comes on the front end or the back end, you still wait for it...

Pork Barrel's advertised benefit is imaginary.

What next, deficit spend on block futures? That's hardly predictable, eh? Where's GeorgeM? We need an animation of Ron Jeremy, wearing an XMR t-shirt, butt-raping the DASH blockchain, STAT!

LOL!

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Example:

Day one:

Pork barrel has $1440 in it. Project costs $3000. Wait for funding.
No pork barrel. $3000 project is approved. $1440 applied. Wait for funding.

Whether the money comes on the front end or the back end, you still wait for it...

Pork Barrel's advertised benefit is imaginary.

What next, deficit spend on block futures? That's hardly predictable, eh? Where's GeorgeM? We need an animation of Ron Jeremy butt-raping the DASH blockchain, STAT!

That's a good example. I see your point.

What the fund option (potentially) does however, is accumulate even when there isn't valid proposals until one is proposed that does make sense. And in the meantime, the scope of what's possible increases. Or the amount of development projects could increase based on fund size.

I get what you're saying, that after the vote, the funding can be raised the same under either proposal, that's why I don't know which model will ultimately be best.

I'm just keeping an open mind for now as we are dealing with a new idea, prior experiences need not apply here.

 

[camosoul]

I'm just keeping an open mind for now as we are dealing with a new idea, prior experiences need not apply here.

Some lessons should not be forgotten, lest they be repeated.... As my half-analogy demonstrated, pieces of the puzzle are already out there, don't ignore them.

 

[thelonecrouton]

FYI, I got a lot of likes on the post referencing trial the "Vote per project donation model".
So refining from there. Any feedback on the options I proposed below?

• Vote per project donation model
• 15% cap on rewards, which only come from masternode share of block rewards.
• Majority vote – 51% to pass or 51% to stop (but I don’t have much of an opinion on the %) with 2 week time limit for voting
• Projects prioritized by amount of yes votes, and put in queue any project voted with majority that can't fit under 15% funding cap.
• Modify Voting from Yay/Nay to voting with a “Project Name”-Y/N
• Modify wallet to include the masternode create project(2,12,Blinding, DASH Address) and masternode list projects.
• Details about each project posted by the owner in a forum post.

Along these lines is the only sane way of doing it. If projects want funding they need to put forth a good case or it isn't going to happen. We want good projects organised and executed by talented people, not half assed crap that ends up getting funded because the money has got to be spent somehow anyway.

Competition breeds excellence. Handouts breed leeches.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Some lessons should not be forgotten, lest they be repeated.... As my half-analogy demonstrated, pieces of the puzzle are already out there, don't ignore them.

True. Parts are there, but the problem is that the other pieces are missing! :grin: We could debate this forever, but actions speak louder than words, and this situation is no different. Hash this out, vote, implement, and evaluate.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

We want good projects organised and executed by talented people, not half assed crap that ends up getting funded because the money has got to be spent somehow anyway.

Totally agree. We all want the same result here, we just disagree on the implementation.

 

[camosoul]

What the fund option (potentially) does however, is accumulate even when there isn't valid proposals until one is proposed that does make sense.

This tiny advantage is sooo not even close to worth the overhead, accusations and bickering that will come with it. It will undermine trust even with no valid reason. How? By the simple fact that we had the chance to avoid the mess and chose to step in it anyway... That's just bad decision making.

And in the meantime, the scope of what's possible increases. Or the amount of development projects could increase based on fund size.

You think that's not happening already? I'm putting together a perpetual advertisements proposal...

I'm just keeping an open mind for now as we are dealing with a new idea, prior experiences need not apply here.

Lets not say things like "prior experiences need not apply here." That's just saying "forget every similar life lesson and start over like you're a newborn."

Be open minded. But don't be so open minded that your brain falls out...

Please don't publish a MN Voting Guide... MN operators are supposed to be smart, remember? ;-)