should people with multiple masternodes receive an economical incentive to always only vote once?

[demo]

Hi @ec1warc1! I am fine. Hope you are well. too.

Hi @demo. Privacy is also an important aspect. No one needs to know how many MNs a MNO has.

I tried to solve this problem here.
My opinion is that you should know how many MNs an Operator has, but you should not know who the Operator is in real life, and thus preserve his privacy. So we have to associate the MasterNode Operator with an empty wallet that passed a proof of individuality procedure.

I would like to have your vote , your questions and your opinion about it.

 

[Leonidas]

Reading the thread, it seems to me that the biggest idea against pietro’s argument (which actually is backed up by proofs) is that if you are a whale, if you have a Masternode, then it is because you are smart enough to have one. And the more you have the smarter you are. So in conclusion, even though I don’t want to generalize, many against pietro’s proposal seem to believe that the amount of Masternode you have in Dash reveals your intelligence, at least business decision wise. Maybe, maybe not. That will not be my argument.

I don’t know if you’d agree with me but the cryptocurrency is a world full of people that are now much richer than they were before. And even more, full of people that were not rich and now are because of the price increase.

So, even though I prefer Pietro’s point of you, and I really would like such an experimentation going on (I’ll sure try that jar bean experiment), I believe that if the argument is richer = cleverer for business decision (and hence dash), anyone who has more than one Masternode before 2017 couldn’t have more than one vote because of the huge increase seen lately :

· We can’t know if people buying some Masternodes before 2017 were actually rich (and then “intelligent” based on that assumption)

· We can know that people buying Masternodes now are rich (and then “intelligent” based on that assumption)

PS : I know this is not feasible, one would just have to sell his Masternode and then buy it back, I’m just trying to make a point

 

[TroyDASH]

Reading the thread, it seems to me that the biggest idea against pietro’s argument (which actually is backed up by proofs) is that if you are a whale, if you have a Masternode, then it is because you are smart enough to have one. And the more you have the smarter you are. So in conclusion, even though I don’t want to generalize, many against pietro’s proposal seem to believe that the amount of Masternode you have in Dash reveals your intelligence, at least business decision wise. Maybe, maybe not. That will not be my argument.

I don’t know if you’d agree with me but the cryptocurrency is a world full of people that are now much richer than they were before. And even more, full of people that were not rich and now are because of the price increase.

So, even though I prefer Pietro’s point of you, and I really would like such an experimentation going on (I’ll sure try that jar bean experiment), I believe that if the argument is richer = cleverer for business decision (and hence dash), anyone who has more than one Masternode before 2017 couldn’t have more than one vote because of the huge increase seen lately :

· We can’t know if people buying some Masternodes before 2017 were actually rich (and then “intelligent” based on that assumption)

· We can know that people buying Masternodes now are rich (and then “intelligent” based on that assumption)

PS : I know this is not feasible, one would just have to sell his Masternode and then buy it back, I’m just trying to make a point

It definitely breaks down when you compare individuals - one person HODLing a node since $2 had to spend way less than someone buying in now. But over time, Masternodes change hands eventually and if you take the *average* amount of capital that was spent to acquire each masternode, that number will continue to go up.

 

[demo]

Of course to study this very well it would be good if we could know how many people with multiple masternodes are there. And how many masternode they have. Then we could simulate it. I remember that when @demo made a proposal on PIVX and he told us that it was going well until one person said "no!" and 400 votes were added against his proposal I the sold all my PIVX. This level of "whalery" does not work well with any form of collective decision making. Whoever is the owner of those 400 masternodes, owns de fact PIVX, which is basically his own private toy. Not interested.

Thats true, but on the other hand in PIVX they are doing some interesting steps.
https://pivx.org/governance/

https://forum.pivx.org/t/three-tiered-network-governance-delegation-voting-weights/1463

https://forum.pivx.org/t/an-equal-w...ised-of-masternodes-stakers-and-votenodes/899

https://forum.pivx.org/t/3-tier-voting-system-amendment-by-crypto-si-representative-voting-nodes/940

https://forum.pivx.org/t/cdg-multiple-governance-categories/1409

A simple comparison of their budget to the budget of Dash, shows that PIVX MNOs are more governance and development oriented (and less marketing oriented) than Dash MNOs.
Look and compare:
http://178.254.23.111/~pub/DN/DN_masternode_payments_stats.html

https://www.dashtreasury.org/current-proposals.html