• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Simple Majority VS Super Majority - Edit due to title breaking rule 6


New member
Also posted on Dashpay reddit

It is not unreasonable to expect something similar to the above headline to emerge on a news site if Dash Core allows the network to proceed down this path.
Far fetched, sure. Impossible or untrue? No.

I find it deeply concerning that Dash Core has decided to bypass a protocol level governance feature of super-majority decision making with no input from the Dash community/stakeholders.
"This is one part of a two-part decision proposal for the selection of a new visual identity concept for the Dash network. Two independent proposals have been submitted to the network for consideration and the better-supported of the two proposals will be selected for the final design. Should both proposals receive a net “no” vote, the current Dash logo will be retained.

Given the above structure, if you prefer the current brand, you should vote “no” on both proposals. If you prefer them both over the current logo, you may elect to vote “yes” on both proposals. A vote of “abstain” will have no effect on the final selection." ~ glennaustin

Re-branding at this point is not a critical event - why are we (as it feels like to me) rushing a fairly divisive decision through with less than 10 days for the network to come to a conclusion?

Yes, it could be argued that if the masternodes want more time to analyse their options then they are able to vote NO on both proposals - however with bypassing the super-majority voting feature we have reduced the likeliness of this happening by a significant amount.

Why should core be allowed to make a change like this AT ALL, let alone with no discussion amongst the masternodes, the greater community, and with such a short period of time - especially when the community has repeatedly made a point of requesting more communication and time when being asked to vote on major changes.

Below is a hypothetical for your consideration;

Lets say in some far future, some senior core members were partial to under the table payments from a proposal owner who stood to gain financially from the outcome of their proposal.
By allowing core the luxury of making a non-protocol level change like this, (simple majority VS super majority, would we not be opening the network up to financial attacks in a similar vein to what has been so disruptive to Bitcoins progress?

I am by NO WAY insinuating that cores intent was anything but honest and I am extremely grateful for the work they have done thus far, however I do not think this qualifies them to make what is in effect a protocol level change to the governance system on such short notice and without a vote - this is something that separates DASH from nearly every other coin out there and should be held in the highest regard.

I ask that citations are provided for any responses that try to explain how "non funded" proposals don't require a super majority, as i have found no such references in any of the official DASH documents.

I write this with the deepest of concern and with the well being of DASH at heart, and wish nothing more than an intelligent and logical discussion on the topic. I (and many others i know) found DASH as a safe haven from the chaos of governance within bitcoin and what that brought, and do not with to see the same slow erosion of DASH, as innocent or benign as it may start.

Again, i do not believe that there is any malice, ill intent or even consequence in this particular proposal, but it CAN NOT be allowed to set a precedence. The DGBB has protocol level rules, if they are to be changed it MUST be changed VIA the DGBB and its current rule set.

I am not opposed to simple majority VS super majority for differing proposals (as i believe is the case with other coins) but it must be set in stone via a governance change proposal, not on an ad hoc basis.

I believe strongly enough in Dash's Governance system to make a proposal myself, this cycle, to have the voices of the MNO's heard on this topic, and be happy with whatever the voting outcome
is, BECAUSE it would have been via the correct channels and BY the system that was put in place to deal with such things.

One final footnote - I had originally voted for the T & C re-branding as I genuinely am in favour of it compared with the current Dash branding, however after speaking with several other MNO's, I and they, are reversing all votes on either proposal until a decision is reached without making changes to the PROTOCOL in effect.

**Edit; Changing title as it broke the rules of the dashpay subredit and I assume it would also be breaking the rules of this forum
Last edited:
Not that its ok either way, but doesn't it already go in favor of keeping the original logo just based off the way the votes are set up...

I get 2 votes(2 different proposals) 1 is always no 1 is always yes.. T&C and O&M have split votes because it's unlikely that people will give both yes votes imo.
so considering a 33% split on votes T&C and O&M get 1 yes vote (every 3 people voting) and keeping the original dash logo gets 2

For example: every vote for T&C also likely includes a no vote for O&M.
An additional No vote for each if you would rather have no change.

The final tally of 3 Masternodes all voting differently would actually give you a vote that looked like this:

O&M 1 2
T&C 1 2

So you can see how this is likely already a "super majority" vote.
Not that its ok either way, but doesn't it already go in favor of keeping the original logo just based off the way the votes are set up...

Yes, that was one of the points that I made in the subreddit post
My concern is not with the outcome of the vote in this instance, it is how we conduct our voting in general. We already have established rules, I am advocating to follow them more precisely.
In this case, the vote was constructed in a way that could have greatly advantaged the 'stay' camp.
I'm even OK for the consensus rules to be changed entirely, as long as the change is a product of the currently employed voting mechanism.
I ask that citations are provided for any responses that try to explain how "non funded" proposals don't require a super majority, as i have found no such references in any of the official DASH documents.

"Non-funded" proposals don't require anything - the reason there is no reference in the official DASH documents is because the protocol does not concern itself with it. The only thing the protocol addresses is how the treasury funds are used. There is no super-majority rule to "bypass" in the context of a proposal in which the purpose is to measure the amount of support or opposition to a particular thing. The core team wants to know which logo has the most support among those most invested in the network, so that they can move forward accordingly. The proposal system happens to be the easiest way to find out the answer to this question, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the 10% rule that is required to spend money.
Actually it looks like the whole premise of my argument was incorrect - I did not read a line from fernando's original forum post with regards to funding;

"If selected by the network, an additional proposal to pay the requested fee of 88,000 EUR will need to pass in the May budget. This would include the completion of the style-guide and transfer of full rights to the brand."

I was operating on the basis that the outcome of the current vote would be our new visual identity, bypassing the 10% majority and being paid for by core.

Sincerest apologies to all